From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bohonowsky v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Jul 30, 1976
336 So. 2d 478 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976)

Opinion

Nos. 75-590, 75-591.

July 30, 1976.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Palm Beach County, Russell H. McIntosh, J.

Philip G. Butler, Jr., of Foley, Colton Butler, West Palm Beach, for appellants.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and C. Marie Bernard and Richard P. Zaretsky, Asst. Attys. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.


We 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 misdemeanor, 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.

The other points raised are without merit.

AFFIRMED IN PART and REVERSED IN PART and remanded.

WALDEN, CROSS and DOWNEY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Bohonowsky v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Jul 30, 1976
336 So. 2d 478 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976)
Case details for

Bohonowsky v. State

Case Details

Full title:ANTOINETTE BOHONOWSKY, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE. JOHN M…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Jul 30, 1976

Citations

336 So. 2d 478 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976)

Citing Cases

Spivey v. State

Since there was no evidence of a specific conversation between Spivey and Lolita as to the amount of cocaine…

Kocol v. State

Kocol argues that "even if it is assumed that a conspiracy was shown . . . the proof only demonstrated…