Mizell v. State

Citations

• 38 Fla. 20

Syllabus

<p>CRIMINAL LAW — LARCENY—WHEN VALUE OF STOLEN PROPERTY NOT REQUIRED TO BE ALLEGED OR PROVED — DESCRIPTION OF ANIMAL. STOLEN.</p> <p>1. Under section 2449 Rev. Stat. the penalty thereby prescribed follows the larceny of any of the domestic animals therein named, regardless of their value. In such cases where the grade of the offense or the penalty prescribed therefor is not measured ■ by or dependent upon the value of the property stolen, but it determined entirely by the class or species of such property, is is not necessary in an indictment charging its larceny to allege any value; neither is it necessary to prove any value.</p> <p>2. In an indictment under said section 2449 Rev. Stat. charging the larceny of any of the domestic animals therein named, it is not necessary to describe the animal stolen by its color, fleshmarks, marks or brands, but is sufficient if it describes the animal stolen by the general name of the genus to which it belongs,, giving the name of its owner, e. g.., “one cow, of the goods, chattels and property of A. T. G. P.”</p> <p>3. A taking of property, without a carrying away, or a carrying away, without a taking, is not larceny. The bare finding of a cow at large upon the common range where everybody’s cattle roam at will, with the brand of two persons upon it, the one brand appearing to have been put upon it more recently than the other, and its ear-marks presenting the appearance of having been altered, with no one claiming it or in possession o.i control of it, and with no proof as to how, or when, or by whom the more recent marks and brand were put upon it, and with no proof showing a stealing, taking and carrying of it away by anyone, will not justify a conviction for the larceny of such cow of the persons whose brand is thus found to have been recently put upon it.</p>