Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

200 So. 2d 212

Docket No. 66-784.

Hunt v. State

Harold HUNT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided June 20, 1967.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1967-06-20

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“* * * * * * "The allegations of ownership should be sufficient enough to (1) establish that the property was not that of the accused, Pippin v. State, 102 Fla. 1124 , 136 So. 883 (1931); (2) protect the accused against a second prosecution for the same crime, Gagne v. State, Fla.App. 1962, 138 So.2d 90 , and (3) to avoid misleading or embarrassing the accused in the preparation of his defense. Addison v. State, 95 Fla. 737 , 116 So. 629 (1928)." * * * * * *”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 293 So. 2d 768 - Clark v. State

Relies on Addison v. State · Exchange National Bank v. Flynn-Harris-Bullard Co. · Pippin v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1967-06-20

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently June 2001

14 state decisions

10019671970198019902000decided

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 →

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

¶2Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Barry N. Semet, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

¶3Before HENDRY, C.J., and PEARSON and SWANN, JJ.

¶4PEARSON, Judge.

¶5The appellant was tried and convicted of a robbery of a grocery store. On this appeal reversal is claimed upon the argument that the State failed to prove the ownership of the property. Appellant relies on Pippin v. State, 1931, 124 Fla. 1124, 136 So. 883 and Alvarez v. State, 128 Fla. 202, 174 So. 333 (1937).

¶6The information alleged that the property taken was the property of "Clara W. George, d/b/a George's Market". The State proved that the property taken was cash from the cash register and a part of the stock of goods of a grocery store known as George's Market which was owned by Clara W. George. The evidence was sufficient.

¶7In each of the cases cited by the appellant, the court discussed the sufficiency of an indictment or information where allegations of ownership are necessary. The allegations of ownership should be sufficient enough to (1) establish that the property was not that of the accused, Pippin v. State, 102 Fla. 1124, 136 So. 883 (1931); (2) protect the accused against a second prosecution for the same crime, Gagne v. State, Fla.App. 1962, 138 So.2d 90, and (3) to avoid misleading or embarrassing the accused in the preparation of his defense. Addison v. State, 95 Fla. 737, 116 So. 629 (1928).

¶8The facts of this case do not support appellant's contention that the proof was insufficient to establish ownership.

¶9Affirmed.

/200/so2d/212 · .json · Public domain