Skip to main content

Bass v. State

Citations

  • 58 Fla. 1

Syllabus

<p>1. Where an assignment is based upon the overruling of the motion for a new trial, an appellate court will consider only such grounds thereof as are argued, and, where no argument is made in support of any of the grounds, such assignment presents nothing for consideration and will be treated as abandoned.</p> <p>2. In a prosecution for larceny, no error was committed in refusing to instruct the jury, at the request of the defendant, “that the taking of property openly and notoriously, without any attempt at concealment or denial, raises a strong presumption against a felonious intent, which you must find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, to have existed at the time or before the taking possession of the cattle, before you will he authorized to find him guilty of larceny.” In so far as such requested instruction states the legal principle correctly, it is not a rule of law to be given in charge to a jury in prosecutions for larceny, but a presumption of fact, which the jury may apply in proper cases, and which may guide the court, in cases where it is applicable in determining the sufficiency of evidence to support a verdict of guilty.</p> <p>3. Any requested instruction is properly refused which is confusing, involved and argumentative, or which would have a tendency to mislead' or confuse the jury.</p> <p>4. There is a clear distinction between the expressions, “unexplained recent possession of stolen property” and “unexplained possession of recently stolen property,” and the same cannot be used interchangeably. A requested instruction is properly refused which loses sight of such distinction.</p> <p>5. Requested instructions, though announcing correct principles of law applicable to thei case, are properly refused where such principles are fully covered in other instructions given at the trial, even though couched in different language.</p> <p>6. The modification or qualification of a requested instruction which correctly states the law applicable to

Judges: Cockrell, Hocker, Parkhill, Shackleford, Taylor, Whitfield

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

15 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

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.