Miller v. State
212 So. 2d 388, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5325
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 28, 1968·No. Nos. 67-253, 67-324·Published·Cited by 3 cases
Opinion
The only testimony relative to value during the trial of these defendants for grand larceny and breaking and entering a dwelling house with intent to commit grand larceny is the following:
“Q. Would you tell the Jury what was missing?
A. A stereo, two TV’s, á Hallicrafter ship-to-shore radio, a watch, some records.
Q. All right. And what value did you place on all of this ?
A. Eight hundred.
Q. Eight hundred dollars ?
A. (Witness nodded affirmatively.)”
This is insufficient. Suarez v. State, 136 So.2d 367 (2d D.C.A.Fla.1962).
The other points raised by appellants are without merit. Pursuant to Florida Statutes § 924.34 (1967), F.S.A., judgment of the trial court is reversed and remanded with instruction to enter judgment of conviction on the lesser included offenses and to pass sentence accordingly.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Miller v. State, 212 So. 2d 388, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5325 (Fla. Ct. App. 1968).
212 So. 2d 388 (Miller v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Platt v. State
291 So. 2d 96 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1974)
Smart v. State
274 So. 2d 577 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1973)
Singleton v. State
258 So. 2d 313 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1972)