Skip to main content

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 CourtListener

Cited by

11 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.