Flynn v. State

98 So. 76, 86 Fla. 467
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided November 14, 1923·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This cause having been duly considered and it appearing that the plaintiff in error was indicted with J. M. Lee and T. Hart Getzen in one count for the larceny of an automobile, the property of D. U. MeGinnes. In a second count J. M. Lee was indicted as principal and T. Hart Getzen and J. G. Flynn as accessories in the same larceny. And in the third county the three were charged with receiving the stolen property. The plaintiff in error Flynn having been tried alone was found guilty and sentenced under the second count of the indictment. As the alleged accessories were indicted with the principal as at common law and were not charged with a substantive [468] offense as is permitted by the statute, and as there is no showing whatever that the person who was indicted as principal has been convicted, the judgment of conviction of the accessory is erroneous and is hereby reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial.

Whitfield, P. J., and West and Terrell, J. J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Flynn v. State, 98 So. 76, 86 Fla. 467 (Fla. 1923).

98 So. 76 (Flynn v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Potts v. State
430 So. 2d 900 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1982)
State v. Peel
111 So. 2d 728 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1959)
Hysler v. State
187 So. 261 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1939)
Whiting and Farris v. State
122 So. 2 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1929)
Tedder v. State
101 So. 112 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1924)