Berzin v. State
Opinion
The appellant in this case seeks review of a conviction for the crime of alleged [898]*898grand larceny committed on October 29, 1966. Adjudication and sentence was withheld, pursuant to the authority of § 948.01 (3), Fla.Stat., F.S.A. We reverse.
The evidence fails to establish, beyond and to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt, that there was a felonious intent to commit larceny on October 29, 1966. This being a necessary ingredient to establish the crime of grand larceny and this record lacking such, we reverse upon the following authorities: Tedder v. State, 73 Fla. 861, 75 So. 783; Helton v. State, 135 Fla. 458, 185 So. 864; Maddox v. State, Fla. 1948, 38 So.2d 58; Ricard v. State, Fla. App.1966, 181 So.2d 677; Reid v. Florida Real Estate Commission, Fla.App.1966, 188 So.2d 846.
Therefore, the conviction here under review is hereby set aside with directions that the appellant be discharged from the cause.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
215 So. 2d 897 (Berzin v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.