Smith v. State
| Decision Date | 13 February 1942 |
| Citation | 6 So.2d 383,149 Fla. 511 |
| Parties | SMITH v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Levy County; A. Z. Adkins, Judge.
W. P Chavous, of Cross City, for appellant.
J. Tom Watson, Atty. Gen., Joseph E. Gillen, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Woodrow M. Melvin, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant, Dave Smith, was informed against in the Circuit Court of Levy County, Florida, tried, convicted and sentenced to the State Prison at hard labor for two years for the larceny of four hogs, property of Willie Ishie. From this judgment or sentence an appeal has been perfected here. Several grounds of the motion for new trial overruled by the trial court challenged the sufficiency of the testimony to sustain the verdict and judgment.
The hogs were unmarked and ranged near the place of the owner. The appellant boarded in a home located not a great distance from the place of Willie Ishie. The owner hunted his hogs on the range about every two weeks and fed them. He was able to identify the hogs by color, as they were raised around him and two were five or six months of age, while the other two were six or seven months old when they disappeared from their usual range in October, 1940. The hogs were located shortly thereafter in a pen near the home of a Mrs. Howell, with whom the appellant was boarding. It was appellant's testimony that the four hogs were owned by Mrs. Howell, but she did not take the stand as a witness. It was asserted that Mrs. Howell owned a hog claim on the range where these hogs disappeared. Some evidence appears in the record that these hogs were by the appellant and Mrs. Howell or her son penned about the time Willie Ishie's hogs disappeared.
It is contended that the testimony fails to show that the appellant took and carried the hogs away from the owner, or that the alleged stolen property was ever in the possession of the appellant. The testimony on this point is none too strong, but it is uncontradicted that the appellant, aided by Mrs. Howell or her son, placed the hogs in the pen near the Howell home. It is true that when the selling price of the hogs was being discussed the appellant inquired of Mrs. Howell the amount thereof. Mrs. Howell, while not appearing as a witness, is quoted as saying that the appellant would name the price. The hogs were shown to be in a pen at or near his boarding house, and placed there by him with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Diecidue v. State, 30913
...718; Higginbotham v. State, 155 Fla. 274, 19 So.2d 829 (1944); Barkley v. State, 152 Fla. 147, 10 So.2d 922 (1942); Smith v. State, 149 Fla. 511, 6 So.2d 383 (1942). 'When considered with the other instructions, we cannot hold this instruction error. The jury was properly informed that they......
-
Proodian v. Plymouth Citrus Growers Ass'n
... ... Denied March 16, 1942 ... [6 So.2d 532] ... [149 Fla ... 508] Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County; Frank A ... Smith, judge ... G. P ... Garrett, of Orlando, for appellant ... Maguire, ... Voorhis & Wells, of Orlando, for appellee ... ...
-
Diecidue v. State, 941
...So.2d 718; Higginbotham v. State, 1944, 155 Fla. 274, 19 So.2d 829; Barkley v. State, 1942, 152 Fla. 147, 10 So.2d 922; Smith v. State, 1942, 149 Fla. 511, 6 So.2d 383. When considered with the other instructions, we cannot hold this instruction error. The jury was properly informed that th......