Supreme Court of Florida· 5/5/1921
Albritton v. State
Citations
- 81 Fla. 684
- 88 So. 623
Syllabus
<p>1. In a trial for larceny, the non-consent of the owner must be proved, as it cannot be presumed from the taking.</p> <p>2. If the absence of the owner is satisfactorily accounted for his non-consent may be proved by circumstantial evidence, provided the circumstances are such as to exclude every reasonable presumption that the owner consented.</p>
Judges: Browne
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
6 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Groover v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1921-12-17· cited 44×
- Davis v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals· 1967-06-13· cited 12×
- Morton v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1968-01-12· cited 9×
- Cross v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1970-06-17· cited 3×
- G. A. D. v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1976-12-14· cited 2×
- Ackerman v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1974-04-02· cited 1×
Cites
7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Wilson v. StateTexas Supreme Court· 1876-07-01· cited 50×
- Ray v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia· 1908-03-16· cited 24×
- Garcia v. StateTexas Supreme Court· 1862-07-01· cited 20×
- Carroll v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court· 1891-03-30· cited 14×
- State v. FaulkSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1908-04-09· cited 7×
- State v. SkinnerOregon Supreme Court· 1896-10-19· cited 4×
- State v. StortsSupreme Court of Missouri· 1897-03-10· cited 3×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.