Jarvis v. State
| Decision Date | 14 March 1917 |
| Citation | 73 Fla. 652,74 So. 796 |
| Parties | JARVIS v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Jackson County; Cephas L. Wilson, Judge.
W. B Jarvis was convicted of grand larceny, and he brings error. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
In larceny it is essential to a conviction that the property was taken 'animo furandi'; and where it clearly appears that the taking was perfectly consistent with honest conduct although the party charged with the crime may have been mistaken, he cannot be convicted of larceny.
A person who has lawful possession of property cannot commit larceny thereof; the possession, however, must have been originally obtained lawfully and without the intent to appropriate the property to his own use; one who obtains the possession by trick, device, or fraud, with intent to appropriate the property to his own use, the owner intending to part with the possession only, commits larceny when he subsequently appropriates it. The consent of the owner in surrendering the possession of property must be as broad as the taking.
Proffered testimony is properly excluded which is clearly irrelevant and not pertinent to the issues.
Requested instructions are properly refused when the matters of law included therein have been fully and correctly covered in the charge and instructions given by the court.
Evidence examined, and found sufficient to support the verdict.
COUNSEL W. E. B. Smith, of Marianna, for plaintiff in error.
T. F West, Atty. Gen., and C. O. Andrews, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
W. B Jarvis seeks relief here from a conviction of the crime of grand larceny and a sentence to confinement in the state prison for a term of two years. The sole error assigned is the overruling of the motion for a new trial, which is based upon six grounds, and which we shall treat in the order in which they are argued.
The first two grounds, which are argued together, are that 'the verdict is not supported by the evidence,' and that 'the verdict is contrary to law.' The first count in the indictment charges the defendant with the larceny of a contract entered into by the defendant and M. L. Dekle, of the value of $1,500, the property of M. L. Dekle, and the second count charges the defendant with the larceny of a chattel mortgage, executed by the defendant to M. L. Dekle, of the value of $500 the property of M. L. Dekle. The defendant entered a plea of not guilty. Very concisely stated, the evidence establishes that, in compliance with a request of the defendant, M. L. Dekle brought the contract and chattel mortgage with him to Greenwood for the purpose of meeting the defendant and having a full settlement of the amount due. Upon the meeting between the defendant and Dekle, after some conversation between them, the defendant requested Dekle to hand him (the defendant) such two instruments in order that the defendant might write a note to Mr. Lewis Smith, the cashier of the Bank of Greenwood, who was temporarily absent at Marianna, nine miles away, to get such cashier to advance the money to the defendant with which to take up the mortgage and contract; that Dekle complied with the defendant's request, and the defendant began to write, but after a few minutes stopped writing, crumpled the paper up which he was writing, dropped it on the floor, folded up the contract and chattel mortgage, and put the same in his pocket, stating to Dekle, 'I believe I will keep these papers and you can mark them paid out of the money I paid you last year.' Further conversation took place between Dekle and the defendant, but it would serve no useful purpose to set it out. Suffice it to say that the evidence establishes that the defendant retained such papers of which he had thus possessed himself and refused to return them to Dekle. The defendant contends that this did not constitute larceny, and cites decisions of this court, as well as of other jurisdictions, which, he claims, support his contention. We have examined these authorities, but find ourselves unable to agree with the defendant. It is undoubtedly true, as we held in Bird v. State, 48 Fla. 3, 37 So. 525, that:
'In larceny it is essential to a conviction that the property was taken 'animo furandi'; and where it clearly appears that the taking was perfectly consistent with honest conduct, although the party charged with the crime may have been mistaken, he can not be convicted of larceny.'
It is also true, as this court held in Long v. State, 11 Fla. 295:
'A taking by mistake or accident, where the animus furandi forms no part, is not felony.'
We also approve of the holdings by this court in the other decisions which the defendant cites and upon which he relies: Charles v. State, 36 Fla. 691, 18 So. 369; Finlayson v. State, 46 Fla. 81, 35 So. 203; Lowe v. State, 44 Fla. 449, 32 So. 956, 103 Am. St. Rep. 171; Minor v. State, 55 Fla. 77, 46 So. 297--but do not see wherein they help the defendant. In Finlayson v. State, supra, we held that:
'A bailee who has lawful possession cannot commit larceny; the possession, however, must have been originally obtained lawfully and without the intent to appropriate the property to his own use; one who obtains the possession by trick, device or fraud with intent to appropriate the property to his own use, the owner intending to part with the possession only, commits larceny when he subsequently appropriates it.'
We might well repeat here what we said in the opinion rendered in that case:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ibarra v. State
...theft, the latter, without reference to the question of fraud, goes beyond the consent, and commits the offence"); see Jarvis v. State, 73 Fla. 652, 74 So. 796, 796 (1917) ("The consent of the owner in surrendering possession of property must be as broad as the taking."). "A watch might be ......
-
Cordell v. State
... ... 368. It is essential, in ... order to sustain a conviction of larceny, that the evidence ... adduced by the State establishes beyond a reasonable doubt ... that the property was taken animo furandi. Helton v ... State, 135 458, 185 So. 864; Cooper v. State, ... 82 365, 90 So. 375; Jarvis v. State, 73 652, 74 So ... It is ... fundamental law and well established in Florida that a person ... charged with crime is entitled to the presumption of ... innocence. The burden of proof of every essential element of ... the crime by law is cast upon the State of Florida and this ... ...
-
Groover v. State
...jury from all the facts of the case. See Hendry v. State, 39 Fla. 235, 22 So. 647; Long v. State, 44 Fla. 134, 32 So. 870; Jarvis v. State, 73 Fla. 652, 74 So. 796. rule announced in the case of Dean v. State, 41 Fla. 291, 29 So. 638, 79 Am. St. Rep. 186, that where one in good faith takes ......
-
Fitch v. State
...be embraced within the provisions of the embezzlement statute in the absence of clear words to that effect. In the case of Jarvis v. State, 73 Fla. 652, 74 So. 796, was held that one who obtains the possession of property by trick, device or fraud, with the intent to appropriate the same to......