Rebjebian v. State
| Decision Date | 23 December 1949 |
| Citation | 44 So.2d 81 |
| Parties | REBJEBIAN et al. v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Ben Cohen, Miami Beach, and Douglas Shivers, Tallahassee, for appellants.
Richard W. Ervin, Attorney General, and Reeves Bowen, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Vahan Rebjebian was convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny, and Margo Krug of being a principal in the second degree.
The sole question presented here is the sufficiency of the proof to establish the intent to steal on the part of Rebjebian at the time he broke and entered a dwelling. To decide it we must first give a resume of the state's testimony, which was not refuted by the defendants or by anyone in their behalf.
The householder, during a period of about a week, had received several strange anonymous telephone calls which caused him to suspect that his home was being 'cased' in preparation for a robbery; so he reported the matter to the police, who advised him to absent himself and his wife for an afternoon that the officers might occupy the house and receive anyone who entered it. After they had left, two detectives and the butler, employed by the owner, took places in the master bedroom. Meanwhile they had locked all doors and closed all windows on the ground floor save one window which was screened. At the time, besides the furnishings in the home, there were located in the master bedroom jewelry, worth $20,000 and, in the dining room or pantry, silverware valued at $3,000. When these men had been at their stations an hour or two, the telephone rang thirteen successive times, and after an interval of a few minutes it rang again sixteen successive times, by actual count. Of course it was not answered.
Within a short time a car carrying the defendants, and driven by Margo Krug, circled the block slowly and eventually stopped just beyond the house. Margo remained in the car while Rebjebian made his way to the house, peered in, and rang the doorbell. There was no response, and immediately afterward the men heard someone tampering with the lock of a door on the first floor. Shortly thereafter Rebjebian opened the door to the bedroom where the men were stationed and started to enter. When he was commanded to raise his hands, he jumped backward and slammed the door, whereupon one of the detectives fired through it, striking Rebjebian in his arm and stopping him dead in his tracks.
Rebjebian wore gloves, was in his shirt sleeves, and carried nothing unusual on his person except a screw driver and a bit of cellophane. Evidently he had disturbed nothing in the house and did not even tarry on the lower floor, but went almost directly to the bedroom on the second story where the jewelry was located, although he had started into another bedroom upstairs, where he was discouraged by the presence of two dogs.
We think that Judge Willard, before...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Waters
...to have been proved by the circumstances, including the presence of property or goods available to be stolen. See, e.g., Rebjebian v. State, 44 So.2d 81 (Fla.1949); Walker v. State, 44 Fla. 466, 32 So. 954 (1902); Clifton v. State, 26 Fla. 523, 7 So. 863 (1890); R.A. v. State, 400 So.2d 105......
-
Felkner v. State
...a conviction. Jalbert v. State, Fla., 95 So.2d 589, 592; 1 (see also Dedge v. State, 128, Fla. 343, 174 So. 725; and compare Rebjebian v. State, Fla., 44 So.2d 81); State v. Andrews, 246 N.C. 561, 99 S.E.2d 745, 749; 2 Duren v. State, 156 Ark. 252, 245 S.W. 823, 824. The fourth and fifth co......
-
R. A. v. State, 80-516
...that he intended to commit theft within the structure. We disagree. Since intent may be shown by circumstantial evidence, Rebjebian v. State, 44 So.2d 81 (Fla.1949); Edwards v. State, 213 So.2d 274 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 221 So.2d 746 (Fla.1968); Jones v. State, 192 So.2d 285 (Fla. 3d......
-
Eaton v. State, s. 74--1012
...commit a felony, and the state incurred the burden of proving that element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In Rebjebian v. State, Fla.1949, 44 So.2d 81, 82--83, with reference to proof of the element of intent involved in such a crime, the Supreme Court said: 'However, the state mee......