Hunt v. State, 66--784
| Decision Date | 20 June 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 66--784,66--784 |
| Parties | Harold HUNT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert L. Koeppel, Public Defender, and Phillip A. Hubbart, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Barry N. Semet, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before HENDRY, C.J., and PEARSON and SWANN, JJ.
The appellant was tried and convicted of a robbery of a grocery store. On this appeal reversal is claimed upon the argument that the State failed to prove the ownership of the property. Appellant relies on Pippin v. State, 1931, 124 Fla. 1124, 136 So. 883 and Alvarez v. State, 128 Fla. 202, 174 So. 333 (1937).
The information alleged that the property taken was the property of 'Clara W. George, d/b/a George's Market'. The State proved that the property taken was cash from the cash register and a part of the stock of goods of a grocery store known as George's Market which was owned by Clara W. George. The evidence was sufficient.
In each of the cases cited by the appellant, the court discussed the sufficiency of an indictment or information where allegations of ownership are necessary. The allegations of ownership are necessary. The enough to (1) establish that the property was not that of the accused, Pippin v. State, 102 Fla. 1124, 136 So. 883 (1931); (2) protect the accused against a second prosecution for the same crime, Gagne v. State, Fla.App.1962, 138 So.2d 90, and (3) to avoid misleading or embarrassing the accused in the preparation of his defense. Addison v. State, 95 Fla. 737, 116 So. 629 (1928).
The facts of this case do not support appellant's contention that the proof was insufficient to establish ownership.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. State, 44919
...to negative the idea that accused was taking his own property." See also, Chapman v. State, 260 So.2d 244 (Fla.App.1972); Hunt v. State, 200 So.2d 212 (Fla.App.1967); Gagne v. State, 138 So.2d 90 (Fla.App.1962); Addison v. State, 95 Fla. 737, 116 So. 629 We are of the opinion that the infor......
-
Cannon v. State, 73--272
...237 So.2d 324. It was alleged and established that the property was not that of the accused. Gaynor v. State, Supra; Hunt v. State, Fla.App.3rd, 1967, 200 So.2d 212; Ross v. State, Fla.App.3rd, 1969, 226 So.2d 464. Appellant could not again be tried for receiving or concealing the same prop......
-
Thomas v. State
...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 212. As to the second point (regarding the ownership of the funds), not only was no objection made in the trial court to the introd......
-
Romero v. State, 5D00-2260.
...prosecution for the same crime and to avoid misleading or embarrassing the accused in the preparation of his defense. Hunt v. State, 200 So.2d 212 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967). The allegations here meet this standard. It is also required that the proof adduced at trial must substantially conform to t......