Smith v. State

Roy Smith Alias Tom Green, Plaintiff in Error, v. State of Florida, Defendant in Error

Smith v. State, 117 So. 377 (Fla. 1928)

Court: Supreme Court of Florida · State Highest Courts
Decided: June 20, 1928
Judges: Ellis, Whitfield, Terrell, Strum, Buford, Brown
Citations: 117 So. 37796 Fla. 30

Opinion of the Court — Ellis

Ellis, C. J.

Information was filed in the Criminal Court of Record for Dade County'Charging the plaintiff in error with the offense of breaking and entering a dwelling place in Miami, the property of Frank Heide, “with intent to commit a felony, to-wit: Grand Larceny, with intent to take, steal and carry away money, goods and chattels of the value of more than Fifty ($50.00) Dollars”. The *31 accused pleaded not guilty. The verdict was as follows: “We, the jury, find the defendant guilty as charged, so say we all”, and was signed by the foreman.

A motion for a new trial was denied and the accused seeks a reversal of the judgment on writ of error.

The only point discussed in the brief is that* there is a fatal variance between the allegation of ownership as to the premises entered and the proof on that point.

The allegation in the information as to the ownership of the dwelling entered places it in one Frank Heide, the proof shows it to have been the property of IT. Rich Mooney.

Heide was an employe of Mooney. His duties were to take care of the grounds and open the house occasionally for ventilation. He had a key to the house but did not live in it or on the premises. » The Assistant Attorney General, who appears for the State, submits the case without argument because he is unable to satisfy himself that the record does not present a case of reversible error.

The judgment should be reversed because of the variance between the allegation and proof as to ownership. Under the statutes denouncing burglarious entering the allegation of ownership of the building alleged to have been entered is material and must be proved as laid. See Pells v. State, 20 Fla. 774 ; Burns v. State, 89 Fla. 494 , 104 So. R. 783; Smith v. State, 80 Fla. 315 , 85 So. R. 911; Vincent v. State, 66 Fla. 197 , 63 So. R. 423; Davis v. State, 51 Fla. 37 , 40 So. R. 179, Potter v. State, 91 Fla. 938 , 109 So. R. 91.

Reversed.

Whitfield, Terrell, Strum and Buford, J. J., concur.

Brown, J., absent on account of illness.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 22 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Morris v. State87 So. 3d 89 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)
Salerno v. State347 So. 2d 659 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)
In Interest of ME370 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 1979)
Holzapfel v. State120 So. 2d 195 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1960)
Sifford v. State202 So. 2d 14 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1967)
Harper v. State169 So. 2d 512 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1964)

Most recent

Morris v. State87 So. 3d 89 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)
DSS v. State806 So. 2d 554 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)
D.S.S. v. State806 So. 2d 554 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)
In Interest of MM571 So. 2d 112 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)
In Interest of ME370 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 1979)
AL v. State359 So. 2d 583 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 6

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Smith v. State, 85 So. 911 (Fla. 1920)	32
	Davis v. State, 51 Fla. 37 (1906)	26
	Burnes v. State, 104 So. 783 (Fla. 1925)	18
	Potter v. State, 109 So. 91 (Fla. 1926)	16
	Pells v. State, 20 Fla. 774 (1884)	14
	Vicente v. State, 63 So. 423 (Fla. 1913)	7

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list