Bohonowsky v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided July 30, 1976

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1976-07-30

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently March 1999

4 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Generally, in such cases it has been said that the best evidence of a person's intent to steal is what he did steal. (Citations omitted). The evidence presented by the state does not exclude the reasonable hypothesis that appellants only intended to steal goods from the store with a value of less than $100.00.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 546 So. 2d 1159 - Kocol v. State

Relies on 248 So. 2d 526 - Rumph v. State · 274 So. 2d 6 - White v. State · Garland v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1976-07-30

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1We reverse appellant’s conviction of conspiracy to commit a felony, to-wit: grand larceny, and remand with instructions to enter a conviction of the lesser charge, conspiracy to commit a misdemean- or, to-wit: petit larceny. Garland v. State, 291 So.2d 678 (4th DCA Fla.1974). The evidence presented at trial clearly proved that the value of the goods taken by appellants was less than $100. Generally, in such cases it has been said that the best evidence of a person’s intent to steal is what he did steal, White v. State, 274 So.2d 6 (4th DCA Fla.1973); Rumph v. State, 248 So.2d 526 (1st DCA Fla.1971). The evidence presented by the state does not exclude the reasonable hypothesis that appellants only intended to steal goods from the store with a value of less that $100.

¶2The other points raised are without merit.

¶3AFFIRMED IN PART and REVERSED IN PART and remanded.

WALDEN, CROSS and DOWNEY, JJ., concur.