Gaynor v. State, 915
| Decision Date | 06 March 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 915,915 |
| Citation | 196 So.2d 19 |
| Parties | John GAYNOR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jack A. Nants, Orlando, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and James T. Carlisle, Asst. Atty. Gen., Vero Beach, for appellee.
Appellant, who was defendant in the trial court, was charged by information with the offense of grand larceny. He was tried and convicted by a jury, and after being so adjudged by the court was sentenced to a term of imprisonment in the state penitentiary. It is this judgment and sentence he appeals and brings the case to its present posture before this court.
The information charges the defendant with larceny in that he 'did then and there steal, take and carry away certain personal property, to-wit: television sets, the value of more than $100.00 the property of one J. M. Fields, Inc., a corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida, from and out of the possession of the said J. M. Fields, Inc., and without its consent * * *.'
The defendant took his wife and two other persons to do some shopping and while so doing defendant removed four television sets from the J. M. Fields store and placed them in his car parked outside. While putting the fourth set in the car defendant was accosted by one of the store clerks. Defendant immediately walked back into the store and disappeared and was not seen again until apprehended at a bar near the trailer camp where he lived. Upon being apprehended, defendant stated that he had purchased the television sets from a Negro outside the store and had left them in his car in front of the store because he had an idea they might have been stolen.
Appellant first contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict made at the conclusion of the state's case on the ground that the information was insufficient as a matter of law. The primary thrust of this contention is that the information did not allege the felonious intent of the defendant to deprive the owner permanently of its property.
In 1951 the Florida legislature incorporated under one definition the separate crimes of larceny, embezzlement and obtaining property under false pretence. F.S.A. § 811.021. By it the legislature sought to simplify the pleadings and eliminate technical distinction and confusion heretofore found which resulted from a fine line of demarcation between these offenses as they had previously been defined by the legislature and the courts. This appears to be in keeping with the modern trend streamlining indictments and informations in order that the trial may proceed speedily to a decision on the merits of the case. The legislature furthered this desired result by including in the above mentioned statute subsection (5), which is as follows:
'F.S. 811.021 Larceny defined; penalties; sufficiency of indictment, information or warrant.--
(5) It shall be sufficient for any indictment, information or warrant returned, filed or issued under this section to charge generally that the defendant at the time and in the county specified, did steal the personal property, thing in action, evidence of debt or contract or article of value out of which the prosecution arose, describing the same in general terms and alleging generally the ownership and value thereof. This section shall not be construed as intending to interfere with the power of the court to require the state to furnish the defendant with a bill of particulars in proper cases and on sufficient showing that cause exists for the same.'
The charge of grand larceny is based on the word 'steal' in the information. This is in conformity with the above-quoted section, F.S. § 811.021(5), F.S.A., and is sufficient to show the felonious intent of the defendant to deprive the owner permanently of its property. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Fields
...339 So.2d 217 (Fla.1976); Adirim v. State, 350 So.2d 1082 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 365 So.2d 709 (Fla.1978); Gaynor v. State, 196 So.2d 19 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 201 So.2d 894 With such major reforms in the criminal justice system as guaranteed reciprocal discovery and near ......
-
Cannon v. State, 73--272
...the description of the property. Byrd v. State, 1941, 146 Fla. 686, 1 So.2d 624; Hearn v. State, Fla.1951, 55 So.2d 559; Gaynor v. State, Fla.App.4th, 1967, 196 So.2d 19; Cross v. State, Fla.App.2d, 1970, 237 So.2d It was alleged and established that the property was not that of the accused......
-
Thomas v. State
...that of any other person other than the true owner, * * * the property in question.' § 811.021(1)(a), Fla.Stat., F.S.A.; Gaynor v. State, Fla.App.1967, 196 So.2d 19; Hunt v. State, Fla.App.1967, 200 So.2d As to the second point (regarding the ownership of the funds), not only was no objecti......
-
State v. T.A., 87-1149
...a means of describing or identifying the property and to show ownership in a person or persons other than the accused. See Gaynor v. State, 196 So.2d 19 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 201 So.2d 894 (Fla.1967). See also, Ross v. State, 226 So.2d 464 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969). Thus, if the original p......