Finley v. State
| Decision Date | 13 July 1943 |
| Citation | 14 So.2d 844,153 Fla. 394 |
| Parties | FINLEY v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Sept. 14, 1943.
Appeal from Criminal Court of Record, Hillsborough County; John R Himes, Judge.
Wm. C. Pierce, of Tampa, for appellant.
J. Tom Watson, Atty. Gen., and Woodrow M. Melvin, Asst. Atty. Gen for appellee.
Appellant was convicted on an information charging that he did receive stolen property knowing it to be stolen and that said property was the property of Saffold Brothers Produce Company, a corporation. He was sentenced to a term in the State Penitentiary and prosecutes this appeal to reverse that judgment.
It is first contended that the judgment should be reversed because the information alleges that the property stolen was the property of a designated corporation while the proof fails completely to prove such ownership.
It is quite true that the information alleges that the property belonged to 'Saffold Brothers Produce Company, a corporation' while the evidence shows that it belonged to 'Saffold Brothers Company, a corporation', 'Saffold Produce Company', 'Saffold Brothers or his Company' or some other similar designation. We are convinced from the whole record, however, that the defendant was in no way embarrassed in his defense by reason of such proof. There was no objection raised to it during the trial; the appellant did not move to strike it nor was there a motion for directed verdict because of insufficiency of the evidence. We think the allegations and the proof were in substantial correspondence and that the objection comes too late at this time.
It appears that an oral and a written confession were admitted in evidence which were substantially identical. Before admitting the written confession an investigation was conducted in the absence of the jury to determine its admissibility, but no such investigation was conducted to determine the admissibility of the oral confession. The second question assigns this as error.
The oral confession was made to J. B. Saffold, one of the owners of the corporation from which the goods were stolen. The written confession was made to D. D. Stevens, a police officer. Both confessions were made at the jail soon after the arrest of defendant. It is admitted that the proper investigation was made in the absence of the jury before the written confession was introduced. The objection raised here to the admission of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Upshaw v. United States
...App., 58 N.E.2d 417, 426, 427; State v. Nagel, N.D., 28 N.W.2d 665, 679; State v. Ellis, 354 Mo. 998, 193 S.W.2d 31, 34; Finley v. State, 153 Fla. 394, 14 So.2d 844; State v. Browning, 206 Ark. 791, 178 S.W.2d 77, 78—80; Russell v. State, 196 Ga. 275, 26 S.E.2d 528, 30 Inbau, The Confession......
-
Culombe v. Connecticut
...301, 145 A.2d 68. Florida: Graham v. State, Fla.1956, 91 So.2d 662; Singer v. State, Fla.1959, 109 So.2d 7, 26; and see Finley v. State, 1943, 153 Fla. 394, 14 So.2d 844; Rollins v. State, Fla.1949, 41 So.2d 885. Georgia: Bryant v. State, 1941, 191 Ga. 686, 13 S.E.2d 820; 1944, 197 Ga. 641,......
-
Dawson v. State
...is not considered by us to be controlling in Florida. In so doing we reaffirmed the position which we had earlier taken in Finley v. State, 153 Fla. 394, 14 So.2d 844, and Singer v. State, Fla.1959, 109 So.2d After a comprehensive analysis of the totality of the circumstances we fail to fin......
-
Singer v. State
...v. United States and McNabb v. United States, supra. And we find that we have reached the same conclusion previously in Finley v. State, 1943, 153 Fla. 394, 14 So.2d 844. In that case the oral and written confessions of the defendant, made in the jail soon after arrest, were admitted into e......