Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

92 Fla. 209

109 So 301

Davis v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided July 6, 1926

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1926-07-06

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently December 1976

4 state decisions

Relies on Synes v. State · Albritton v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1926-07-06

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1 The defendant in error was convicted in the Circuit Court of Highlands County of the offense of the larceny of a cow and was sentenced to serve two years in State Prison for such offense.

¶2 From such conviction he sued out writ of error.

¶3 The transcript of the record fails to show arraignment or plea.

¶4 An examination of the evidence as contained in the record discloses that there was no proof that the cow which *210 was alleged to have been the subject of larceny was taken, if at all, by the defendant without the consent of the owner. In cases of larceny it is necessary that every essential ingredient of the crime be proven by some evidence and that such evidence must be sufficient to establish every essential element against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt before a conviction may lawfully be had. Sykes v. State, 78 Fla. 167, 82 South. Rep. 778; Albritton v. State, 81 Fla. 684, 88 South. Rep. 623. Upon the authority of the opinions in the cases above cited this case should be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial, and it is so ordered.

¶5 Reversed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur. Brown, C. J., and Ellis and Strum, J. J., concur in the opinion.
/92/fla/209 · .json · Public domain