Maddox v. State
| Decision Date | 21 December 1948 |
| Citation | 38 So.2d 58 |
| Parties | MADDOX v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Madison County; R. H. Rowe, Judge.
R. C. Horne, of Madison, for appellant.
J. Tom Watson Atty. Gen., Sumter Leitner, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Lucille Snowden, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This appellant Travis Maddox, a young farmer, was convicted in the Circuit Court of Madison County upon an indictment charging him with the larceny of two sow hogs and one male hog, the property of one Hughey Blanton, and sentenced to two years imprisonment at hard labor in the State prison.
These young hogs two gilts and one shoat, which the appellant testified that he had bought and paid for several months previously when they were mere pigs, were described by one or two of the witnesses as being black 'piney-woods rooters,' such as are frequently seen in the woods, and usually look very much alike. Hughey Blanton, a farmer, who lived not very far from appellant, claimed to have raised three hogs of the same description which had disappeared for several days and then returned. When appellant was told by a neighbor that his hogs, which had also failed to show up for some days, were in the possession of Blanton, he proceeded to go to Blanton's place and got the hogs, took them home and marked them in his brand. Then in his absence, Blanton took the hogs back to his place and put them in a pen. When appellant found this out, he went to see Blanton and claiming ownership, demanded possession of the hogs, but the ownership could not be adjusted between them. Then appellant went to Madison and swore out a warrant for Blanton and also consulted an attorney with reference to taking out replevin papers for the hogs. The warrant taken out by appellant for Blanton was later dismissed by the County Judge, without the knowledge of appellant, and a warrant was issued against appellant, which was certified to the Grand Jury, which resulted in the indictment of Maddox.
The evidence indicates that each of the parties, the appellant and Blanton, honestly believed that these three young hogs belonged to him. The evidence shows that the taking of these hogs by appellant was open and under a claim of ownership. The evidence, as we construe it, is in conflict as to which of these parties was really the owner of these particular three young hogs.
The jury must have had some serious doubts about the guilt of Maddox, because the verdict read as follows: 'We, the Jury, find the defendant, Travis Maddox, guilty as charged in the Indictment and recommend suspension of sentence; so say we all.'
As far back as Long v. State, 11 Fla. 295, this Court said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peña v. State
...plates supported a “reasonable inference that the taker intended to deprive the owner of possession.”) (citation omitted); Maddox v. State, 38 So.2d 58, 59 (Fla.1948) (describing how a jury may infer larcenous intent from “an effort to conceal the possession of another's property” (quoting ......
-
Rhodes v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.
...Rhodes raises this ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim as Ground Three of his Amended Petition. [12] See Maddox v. State, 38 So.2d 58, 59 (Fla. 1948); Ginn v. State, 26 So.3d 706, 712 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). [13] Davis v. State, 998 So.2d 1196 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). [14] Miranda v. ......
-
Hargray v. City of Hallandale
...a strong presumption of no felonious intent is raised. Adams v. State, 443 So.2d 1003, 1007 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (quoting Maddox v. State, 38 So.2d 58, 59 (Fla.1948)). The Court finds that the City failed to establish by competent evidence the existence of probable cause to prosecute Hargray ......
-
Reid v. Florida Real Estate Commission
...trespass. It is always necessary that it be shown that the property was taken Animo furandi to sustain a finding of guilt. Maddox v. State, Fla.1948, 38 So.2d 58; Helton v. State, 1938, 135 Fla. 458, 185 So. 864; Flint v. State, 1940, 143 Fla. 259, 196 So. 619; American Fire & Cas. Co. v. S......