May v. State
| Decision Date | 18 October 1898 |
| Parties | MAY et al. v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to circuit court, Washington county; Evelyn C. Maxwell Judge.
A. D. May and others were convicted of breaking and entering a dwelling house, and bring error. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
The pushing open a door entirely closed is a sufficient breaking to sustain a conviction on a charge of breaking and entering a dwelling house with intent to commit a felony.
COUNSEL Liddon & Eagan, for plaintiffs in error.
William B. Lamar, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The plaintiffs in error and one James Hollins were indicted under the statute, for breaking and entering a dwelling house with intent to commit a felony. Plaintiffs in error sued out a writ of error from the judgment entered against them, and have assigned three grounds of error in this court, but all are abandoned except the third, which is that the court erred in overruling the motion of defendants for a new trial. The only point insisted on under this assignment is that the testimony does not show a 'breaking' into the house by the defendants. The contention is that it is made to appear from the testimony that the door of the house through which it is claimed the defendants entered was not at the time entirely closed, and that it would not constitute a breaking, under the statute, for defendants to push open a door not at the time entirely closed.
Two witnesses testified as to the situation of the door when the alleged entry was made. One stated that the door was closed, but had no fastening on it; that it was hard to shut or open, and, when closed, it had to be lifted up some to be opened. It was a heavy plank door, and dragged the floor in shutting, and was hard to open, and it took a hard pull to open it. Witness states, in a general way, that defendants came to the house, and broke in. She also states that she shut the door, and it was nearly together; 'you might get your hand between it.' The other witness, who was also sleeping in the house at the time, states positively that the door was shut, and the defendants shoved it open. She states: On this testimony we should not disturb the conclusion of the jury that the door was entirely closed when it was pushed open, as positive testimony to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State v. Henderson
...538; Dennis v. People, 151 Mich. 151; State v. Moon, 62 Kan. 803; Finch v. Com., 14 Gratt. (Va.) 646; State v. Reid, 20 Iowa 421; May v. State, 40 Fla. 426; State Conners, 95 Iowa 486. (4) The evidence of the guilt of both defendants was sufficient, especially in the absence of any explanat......
- Kirtsinger v. State
-
State v. Sorenson
...Am. Rep. 556; Rex v. Smith, 1 Moody (Eng.) 178; State v. Long, 5 Ohio Dec. 617;Timmons v. State, 34 Ohio St. 426, 32 Am. Rep. 376;May v. State, 40 Fla. 426, 24 South. 498;Smith v. Commonwealth (Ky.) 128 S. W. 68, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1023. See, also, cases collated in 6 Cyc. 174. In the late......
-
Boynton v. State
...arrest. The appellee contends that pushing the door open did not constitute an unlawful entry or trespass. In the case of May v. State, 40 Fla. 426, 24 So. 498, this Court held that pushing open a door which was entirely closed was a sufficient breaking to sustain a conviction on a charge o......