Higginbotham v. State

82 So. 601, 78 Fla. 114
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedJuly 14, 1919
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 82 So. 601 (Higginbotham v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Higginbotham v. State, 82 So. 601, 78 Fla. 114 (Fla. 1919).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

— Higginbotham was charged with the larceny of “one bull, one steer, one cow, of the property of Richard Windham.” The jury found him “guilty of larceny of one bull belonging to Richard Windham.” Writ of error was taken to a penitentiary sentence.

The evidence is that the defendant below was discovered skinning a cow; and there is no evidence that the defendant committed larceny of a bull. Even if the evidence is sufficient to support a finding of larceny of a cow belonging to Richard Windham, the verdict is “guilty of larceny of one lull,” when the only evidence relates to a “cow” or to an “animal,” no reference being made to a lull in the testimony.

[115]*115The verdict has no legal basis in the evidence and the judgment is reversed for a new trial.

Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield and Ellis, J. J., concur.

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

Related

Grissom v. State
405 So. 2d 291 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)
Higginbotham v. State
85 So. 915 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1920)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
82 So. 601, 78 Fla. 114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/higginbotham-v-state-fla-1919.