Peters v. State
| Decision Date | 30 November 1954 |
| Citation | 76 So.2d 147 |
| Parties | Lester PETERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Finch & Mosley, Clearwater, for appellant.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and John S. Lloyd, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant was charged with breaking and entering a dwelling 'in the nighttime * * * with intent * * * to commit a misdemeanor,' was found guilty by the jury and adjudged guilty by the court, and was sentenced to a term of three years in state prison.
The information contained no allegation about the specific crime intended to be committed at the time of the breaking and entering. Obviously the information was framed under Section 810.07, Florida Statutes 1953, and F.S.A., and the trial proceeded accordingly. At the conclusion of the testimony the judge instructed the jury that the information was 'drawn and prepared under Chapter 810.07' and that it was therefore necessary for the state to prove the three elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt; namely, (1) the breaking and entering in the nighttime of (2) a dwelling house (3) stealthily. Under the cited law the proof of these elements would become prima facie evidence of entering with the intent to commit some misdemeanor 'in the absence of proof of intent to commit any specific crime.' Cf. Charles v. State, 36 Fla. 691, 18 So. 369, Vawter v. State, Fla., 63 So.2d 255. So to obtain a conviction, establishment of all three factors was indispensable; failure to prove one would be fatal to the state's case.
It was shown that the act occurred at night and that the place entered was the dwelling place of the prosecuting witness, but evidence of stealthiness was lacking. The appellant, an acquaintance of the prosecutrix, was evidently forcing his attentions upon her but it is plain from the record that his attempted conquest was more artless than stealthy. It is difficult to imagine how the appellant could have given more or more varied alarms that he proposed to go into the girl's apartment.
We turn to her testimony for a description of his actions. He rang the door bell and when she failed to answer 'he kept ringing * * * and he said he wanted to come in and talk to him (sic), to give him a chance.' In the conversation, through the closed door, he told her she had been 'on his mind' and he wished to talk to her as 'he was sure (they) were meant for each other.' His entreaties having failed 'He walked around the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gonzalez v. Sec'y of Dep't of Corr.
...to have been given. This was not a case where the Defendant's entry into the dwelling was anything but stealthy. See Peters v. State, 76 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 1954). In Peters, the facts indicated that the defendant had rung the door bell, spoke to the victim from outside the dwelling, and tried......
-
Norris v. State
...State, Fla.App.1967, 200 So.2d 640; Hall v. State, Fla.App.1965, 179 So.2d 372; Sinclair v. State, Fla.1950, 46 So.2d 453; Peters v. State, Fla.1954, 76 So.2d 147; Victer v. State, Fla.1965, 174 So.2d 544; Melkun v. State, Second District Court of Appeal, 244 So.2d 145, filed February 17, 1......
-
State v. Fields
...within the structure. Of importance is the fact that it does not require proof of intent to commit a specific offense. Cf. Peters v. State, 76 So.2d 147 (Fla.1954); Bayless v. United States, 381 F.2d 67 (9th Cir. 1967); State v. Murie, 140 Wash. 71, 248 P. 79 (1926). Therefore, in order to ......
-
Brown v. State, 69-174
...on both counts as alleged. We affirm the convictions as orally stated by the court upon the following authorities: Peters v. State, Fla.1954, 76 So.2d 147; Hall v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So.2d 202; Dobry v. State, Fla.App.1968, 211 So.2d 603; State v. Wright, Fla.1969, 224 So.2d 300; Peop......