Alvarez v. State

Citations

• 75 Fla. 286

Syllabus

<p>1. An allegation in an information charging the offense of receiving stolen property knowing the same to have been stolen, that the property stolen was ’owned by a corporation giving its name and alleging that it was a corporation, is a sufficient allegation of ownership of the property stolen.</p> <p>2. An information charging the defendant in one count with the offense of receiving stolen property knowing the same to have been stolen, and in a second count charging him with being accessory before the fact to such offense is not duplicitous.</p> <p>3. The refusal of the court to order the State Attorney to furnish the defendant with a bill 'of particulars in' the prosecution of an information for receiving stolen property knowing the same to have been stolen will not be held to be erroneous in the absence of anything in the record to show an abuse of discretion in such refusal.</p> <p>4. In the trial of a criminal case in which the defendant is charged with the offense of receiving stolen property knowing it to have been stolen, the court should instruct the jury to find the value of the property stolen and received with that knowledge 'by the defendant in case they should find the defendant guilty.</p> <p>5. The admission of hearsay evidence which is prejudicial in character to the defendant is erroneous, and when properly objected to by him should be excluded from the jury.</p>