From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Croft v. State

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A
May 12, 1939
139 Fla. 711 (Fla. 1939)

Opinion

Opinion Filed May 12, 1939

A Writ of Error from the Circuit Court for Hernando County, Fred L. Stringer, Judge.

Martin Martin, for Plaintiff in Error;

George Couper Gibbs, Attorney General, and Thomas J. Ellis, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.


To judgment of conviction of the offense of larceny of a cow plaintiff in error sued out writ of error.

He presents two questions for our consideration, stated as follows:

"QUESTION No. ONE: In a larceny prosecution is it esential to a valid conviction that the State prove venue?"

"QUESTION No. Two: Is the evidence in the case at bar sufficient to justify conviction for larceny of a cow?"

Both questions must be answered in the affirmative.

Inspection of the record discloses that the State met the burden suggested by each question.

No reversible error being made to appear, the judgment is affirmed.

So ordered.

TERRELL, C. J., and BUFORD and THOMAS, J. J., concur.

BROWN, J., concurs in opinion and judgment.

Justices WHITFIELD and CHAPMAN not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.


Summaries of

Croft v. State

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A
May 12, 1939
139 Fla. 711 (Fla. 1939)
Case details for

Croft v. State

Case Details

Full title:JAMES H. CROFT v. STATE

Court:Supreme Court of Florida. Division A

Date published: May 12, 1939

Citations

139 Fla. 711 (Fla. 1939)
191 So. 34

Citing Cases

McClellion v. State

In order to obtain a conviction, the state must prove venue. Croft v. State, 191 So. 34 (1939); Pennick v.…