Lowe v. State

Citations

• 44 Fla. 449

Syllabus

<p>1. Where defendant in a criminal case interposes a demurrer to the State’s evidence which is in parol and almost wholly circumstantial, and no part of the testimony is reduced to writing, no specific facts are admitted upon the record and the State Attorney does not join in such demurrer, the court should decline to consider it; but if the court does consider and overrules it, and defendant is afterwards permitted to interpose evidence, in his defense, the error in overruling, instead of declining to consider the demurrer, is without injury, and will constitute no ground for reversing the judgment of conviction entered upon the verdict of the jury.</p> <p>2. A taking by the voluntary consent of the owner or his authorized servant or agent, even though with a felonious intent, does not constitute larceny.</p> <p>S. Where the criminal design to steal originates with the accused, and the owner of the property stolen does .not in person or by an agent or servant suggest the design, nor actively urge the accused on to the commission of the crime, the mere fact that such owner, suspecting that the accused intends to steal his property, in person or through an agent or servant exposes the property, or neglects to protect it, or furnishes facilities for the execution of the criminal design under the expectation that the accused will take the property or avail himself of the facilities furnished, will not in law amount to a consent to the taking, even though the agent or servant of such owrier by his instructions appears to co-operate in the execution of of the crime.</p> <p>4. Evidence examined and found insufficient to support the verdict.</p>