Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

187 So. 2d 908

Docket No. 65-960.

Todd v. State

Richard Russell TODD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided June 21, 1966.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1966-06-21

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“"The defendant was not apprehended while in the dwelling, and the fact that he left the premises after having taken property which was not shown to have a value of $100 or more, is reason to infer that the breaking and entering was with intent to take that which was taken, rather than that the entry was with intent to take property of the value of $100 or more. Moreover, the latter assumption would be out of place here because the evidence did not show the personal property on the premises, or its value."”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Adams v. State, 248 So. 2d 526 - Rumph v. State

“Charged by information in one count with breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit grand larceny, and in a second count with grand larceny, on trial before the court without a jury the appellant was convicted on the first count, and found guilty on the lesser offense of petit larceny on the second count. He filed this appeal from the judgment and sentence thereon.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Guerrero v. State

Relies on 111 So. 2d 68 - Lambert v. State · 181 So. 2d 193 - Escobar v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1966-06-21

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently December 1983

19 state decisions

140196619701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*909 Robert L. Koeppel, Public Defender and Phillip A. Hubbart, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

¶2Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Herbert P. Benn, First Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

¶3Before HENDRY, C.J., and CARROLL and BARKDULL, JJ.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5The appellant was charged in a two count information with breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit a felony, to-wit: grand larceny, and with grand larceny. He pleaded not guilty, was tried by the court without a jury and found guilty as charged. He was sentenced to ten years in the state penitentiary on both offenses.

¶6On this appeal it is contended on behalf of the defendant below that the evidence was insufficient to support the judgment. A necessary element of proof to establish guilt of the charge of grand larceny was the taking of property of a value of $100 or more at the time of the theft. Lambert v. State, Fla.App. 1959, 111 So.2d 68, 69. We agree with the contention of the appellant that the state did not fulfill that requirement of proof. The property taken was a radio and a television set. As to the latter, the state presented evidence that it had cost $135 when acquired two years earlier. No evidence was submitted as to the value of the radio. Evidence as to cost of the alleged stolen property did not establish its market value at the time of the theft. Lambert v. State, supra; Escobar v. State, Fla.App. 1965, 181 So.2d 193.

¶7The appellant's contention that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction on the other charge also has merit. The defendant was not apprehended while in the dwelling, and the fact that he left the premises after having taken property which was not shown to have a value of $100 or more, is reason to infer that the breaking and entering was with intent to take that which was taken, rather than that the entry was with intent to take property of the value of $100 or more. Moreover, the latter assumption would be out of place here because the evidence did not show the personal property on the premises, or its value.

¶8For the reasons stated the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded with *910 directions to the trial court to enter judgment holding the defendant guilty of the lesser included offenses (breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit a misdemeanor, to-wit: petty larceny, and petty larceny), and to impose sentences therefor as provided by law.

¶9Reversed and remanded with directions.

/187/so2d/908 · .json · Public domain