Skip to main content

Charles v. State

Citations

  • 36 Fla. 691

Syllabus

<p>1. It is not necessary in an indictment under our statute for breaking and entering a building in the nighttime with intent to commit a misdemeanor, by stealing, to allege that the property intended to be stolen was actually in the building at the time of the breaking and entry thereof.</p> <p>3. An assignment of error is that the court erred in refusing to require fuller answers of a State’s witness, whose name is given, • to questions propounded by defendant’s counsel on cross-examination. Neither the assignment nor brief states the questions upon which the ruling was made, and no page of the record is designated where the ruling complained of can be found. Under these’ circumstances, it is not the duty of the court to search the record to ascertain what questions and answers and rulings are intended to be presented by the assignment’and brief.</p> <p>3. The defense in a criminal case charging the defendant with breaking and entering a building with intent to steal a mule was that the breaking and entry were made with no criminal intent, but in good -faith to take possession of the mule, believing him to‘be the property of the defendant. The State read in rebuttal the record of a proceeding in replevin for the mule in a justice of the peace court, begun by defendant against the person m possession of the animal. From this record it appeared that the case was dismissed for want of prosecution. The defendant, in his statement before the jury, had given a parol statement about the same proceeding. The record was objected to as being irrelevant and immaterial: Held, That the objection was properly overruled; that evi1 dence tending to prove a voluntary abandonment by the defendant of his suit for possession of the mule tended to contradict his statement of good faith and honest belief that it was his property.</p> <p>4. Where a question is involved in a criminal case as to the ownership of property which the defendant is charged with an intent to steal, evidence te

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • “[T]he good faith and honest belief of the defendant need not be such as would be entertained by a reasonable and pmdent man, provided it was really honest and in good faith, and not a sham or pretense”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Liddon

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

19 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

4 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.