Lopez v. State
| Decision Date | 03 August 1932 |
| Parties | LOPEZ v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Criminal Court of Record, Polk County; Mark O'Quin, Judge.
Joe Lopez was convicted of unlawfully and feloniously breaking and entering a store building with intent to commit a felony, and he brings error.
Reversed.
COUNSEL Whitaker Brothers, of Tampa, for plaintiff in error.
Cary D. Landis, Atty. Gen., and Roy Campbell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The conviction herein was upon an information which alleges that the defendant 'did unlawfully and feloniously break and enter a store building to wit: store building of the Independent Wholesale Grocery, Mulberry, Florida, which said Independent Wholesale Grocery is owned by Mutual Stores, Inc., with intent to commit a felony to wit: 'store building."
The name of the owner of the building which was broken and entered must be stated with accuracy. Pells v. State, 20 Fla. 774; Davis v. State, 51 Fla. 37, 40 So. 179; Vicente v. State, 66 Fla. 197, 63 So. 423; Burnes v. State, 89 Fla. 494, 104 So. 783; Davis v. State, 54 Fla. 34, 44 So. 757; Tilly v. State, 21 Fla. 242; Presley v. State, 61 Fla. 46, 54 So. 367; Smith v. State, 96 Fla. 30, 117 So. 377; Dees v. State, 99 Fla. 1144, 128 So. 485; Kirtsinger v. State, 99 Fla. 433, 126 So. 767; Leslie v. State, 35 Fla. 171, 17 So. 555.
The allegation as to ownership is 'a store building of the Independent Wholesale Grocery, Mulberry, Florida, which said Independent Wholesale Grocery is owned by Mutual Stores, Inc.' Assuming that 'Mutual Stores, Inc.,' is a corporation, the allegation that the building broken and entered is a store building of the Independent Wholesale Grocery, which said Independent Wholesale Grocery is owned by Mutual Stores, Inc., is merely an allegation that the Mutual Stores, Inc., owns the Independent Wholesale Grocery, not the store building of the Independent Wholesale Grocery, and there is no allegation that the Independent Wholesale Grocery is a corporation. See Pells v. State, 20 Fla. 774. The allegation as to ownership of the store building is insufficient to sustain a conviction that is challenged by writ of error.
Reversed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson v. State, 77-213
...thus defined must be sufficiently alleged in the indictment or information and proven as alleged without fatal variance. Lopez v. State, 106 Fla. 361, 143 So. 303 (1932); Addison v. State, 95 Fla. 737, 116 So. 629 (1928); Davis v. State, 51 Fla. 37, 40 So. 179 (1906); Pells v. State, 20 Fla......
-
Black v. State, 77-1233
...some matters in the criminal law which historically were required to be alleged with great precision. For example, in Lopez v. State, 106 Fla. 361, 143 So. 303 (1932), the court reversed a defendant's conviction of breaking and entering a store building with intent to commit a felony becaus......
-
State v. Emanuel
...of the owner of a building allegedly broken and entered, there is no question but that the information is defective. Lopez v. State, 1932, 106 Fla. 361, 143 So. 303; Alvarez v. State, 1946, 157 Fla. 254, 25 So.2d 661; Sipos v. State, Fla.1956, 90 So.2d 113. That problem does not exist in th......
-
Alvarez v. State
...v. State, 106 Fla. 361, 143 So. 303; Findley v. State, Page 663. 124 Fla. 447, 168 So. 544; Byrd v. State, 146 Fla. 686, 1 So.2d 624. In the Lopez we held that the information must state the name of such owner with accuracy. It is also well settled that if an information be amended in a mat......