Clark v. State
Citations
- 59 Fla. 9
Syllabus
<p>1. Where an allegation in an indictment for larceny that a better description of the property is unknown is material, the point becomes an issue .</p> <p>2. In a prosecution for larceny the indictment, for the purpose of giving individuality to the act charged, should with reasonable certainty state the species or names and the number of the articles or things alleged to have been stolen, so as to show that the things or articles are personal property and the subjects of larceny and that the proofs are of the same property, and to prevent embarrassment to the accused in making his defense and to protect him against a second prosecution for the same offense.</p> <p>3. In an indictment for larceny, the description of the property required is only such as in connection with other allegations, will, if sustained by proof, affirmatively show the defendant to be guilty, and will reasonably inform him of the facts charged and enable him to make defense. The limit in requiring certainty of description is that it need not be so minute or expanded as to impose unreasonable burdens upon the prosecution or otherwise defeat justice.</p> <p>4. Where an indictment for larceny contains a sufficient description of the stolen property, an allegation that a better description is unknown is immaterial. Where the description is not sufficient to enable the defendant to make his defense, he should make proper application for a better description.</p> <p>5. In a prosecution for larceny where the indictment contains an apparently sufficient description of the stolen property, and also an allegation that a better description is unknown, it is not error to exclude testimony as to whether the grand jurors in fact knew a better description of the property.</p> <p>3. Where some of the testimony of a witness is admissible, a motion to strike the whole of such testimony is too broad and properly denied.</p> <p>7. An assignment of error based upon tbe refusal of the court to give a requested ch
Judges: Cockrell, Hocker, Parkhill, Shackleford, Taylor, Whitfield
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
11 cases in this archive cite this case.
- In re RobinsonSupreme Court of Florida· 1917-05-14· cited 48×
- Yarbrough v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1920-03-12· cited 28×
- Ammons v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1924-12-16· cited 19×
- Gaynor v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1967-03-06· cited 14×
- Mathis v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1915-07-13· cited 10×
- Black v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1919-03-25· cited 8×
- Carnley v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1924-10-18· cited 7×
- Hunter v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1912-06-15· cited 5×
- Davis v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1928-02-14· cited 3×
- Hughes v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1923-07-20· cited 2×
- Braswell v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1970-01-20· cited 2×
Cites
12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Lester v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1896-01-15· cited 79×
- McDonald v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1908-06-15· cited 62×
- Glover v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1886-06-15· cited 13×
- Powell v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia· 1891-11-02· cited 13×
- Enson v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1909-06-15· cited 9×
- Mizell v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1896-06-15· cited 8×
- Thomas v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1905-01-15· cited 8×
- Oliver v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1907-06-15· cited 7×
- Williams v. StateIndiana Supreme Court· 1865-11-15· cited 6×
- State v. CurtisSupreme Court of Louisiana· 1892-03-15· cited 6×
- Porter v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1890-01-15· cited 5×
- White v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1890-06-15· cited 4×
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.