Porter v. State
| Citation | 26 Fla. 56,7 So. 145 |
| Parties | PORTER v. STATE. |
| Decision Date | 12 February 1890 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
Syllabus by the Court
1. An indictment for larceny sufficiently describes the kind and value of property stolen as 'one lot of silver coin, of the denomination of one dollar each, of the currency of the United States, of the value of twenty-five dollars, of the goods, moneys, and chattels of one J. H. M.'
2. An indictment for the larceny of 'one lot of silver coin of the United States currency, of the denomination of dollars half-dollars, quarters, dimes, and five-cent pieces, of the value of twenty-five dollars, a more particular description of which coin is to the jurors unknown, of the goods,' etc., is sufficiently specific to warrant a judgment upon a general verdict of guilty.
William B. Lamar, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The plaintiff in error was convicted upon a charge of larceny and brings his case here upon writ of error to the circuit court of Santa Rosa county from an order of said court overruling the motion in arrest of judgment, and assigns the following errors: (1) The court erred in refusing the motion in arrest of judgment; (2) the court erred in holding the indictment herein sufficient to render judgment on; (3) the court erred in holding that the indictment sufficiently described the money alleged to have been stolen. These several assignments may be construed together.
The indictment contains two counts, the first of which charges the defendant with larceny of 'one lot of silver coin, of the denomination of one dollar each, of the currency of the United States, of the value of twenty-five dollars, of the goods, moneys, and chattels of one J. H. McLendon;' and the second count charges the defendant with the larceny of 'one lot of silver coin of the United States currency, of the denomination of dollars, half dollars, quarters, dimes and five-cent pieces, of the value of twenty-five dollars, a more particular description of which coin is to the jurors unknown, of the goods,' etc. The only question to be considered is as to the sufficiency of the indictment.
There is a conflict of authorities as to whether or not the description of the coin in the first count of the indictment is sufficiently definite. At the common law this description was not sufficient, and the same doctrine has been held in some of the courts in this country; but other authorities of high respectability hold that the description is sufficient. Brown v. People, 29 Mich. 232; Com. v. O'Connell, 12 Allen. 451; State v Walker, 22 La. Ann. 425; Com. v. Gallagher, 16 Gray, 240, citing U.S. v. Rigsby, 2 Cranch, C. C. 364; Merwin v. People, 26 Mich. 298; McKane v State, 11 Ind. 195; Berry v. State,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lewis v. State
... ... 60] ... count is fatally defective, because it fails to sufficiently ... describe the property alleged to have been embezzled. This ... question has previously been decided by this court adversely ... to the contention of the defendant. See Porter v ... State, 26 Fla. 56, 7 So. 145; Lang v. State, 42 ... Fla. 595, 28 So. 856; Sigsbee v. State, 43 Fla. 524, ... 30 So. 816; Eatman v. State, 48 Fla. 21, 37 So. 576 ... The discussion in Sullivan v. State, 44 Fla. 155, 32 ... So. 106, will also prove instructive. In the last-cited ... ...
-
Strobhar v. State
... ... it may so aver; and the allegation of the embezzlement of a ... stated number of dollars, followed by the statement that a ... more particular description thereof is unknown to the ... indicting grand jury, is all that is required to make the ... description sufficient. Porter v. State, 26 Fla. 56, ... 7 So. 145; Lang v. State, 42 Fla. 595, 28 So. 856; ... 25 Cyc. 78; Lewis v. State (decided at this term) 45 So. 998 ... It is contended, however, that the clause 'a more ... particular description of which is to the grand jurors ... unknown' refers to the ... ...
-
Lang v. State
...Territory v. Bell, 5 Mont. 562, 6 P. 60; Haskins v. People, 16 N.Y. 344; Merwin v. People, 26 Mich. 298, 12 Am. Rep. 314; Porter v. State, 26 Fla. 56, 7 So. 145; State v. Shirer, 20 S.C. 392. There is a in the present indictment that the denomination of the money alleged to have been stolen......
-
Clark v. State
...required to protect the rights of the defendant. See Glover v. State, 22 Fla. 493; Mizell v. State, 38 Fla. 20, 20 So. 769; Porter v. State, 26 Fla. 56, 7 So. 145; Bishop's New Crim. Proc. par. 700; State v. Curtis, 44 La. Ann. 320, 10 So. 784; State v. Parker, 47 Vt. 19; Williams v. State,......