Torr v. State

144 So. 839, 107 Fla. 382
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedDecember 6, 1932
StatusPublished

This text of 144 So. 839 (Torr 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
Torr v. State, 144 So. 839, 107 Fla. 382 (Fla. 1932).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Even if the information herein charges an offense under the statute when the essential language of the statute or its equivalent is not used in the information, the judgment of conviction of larceny of an automobile is predicated upon evidence that does not show a taking with felonious intent; and a new trial should have been granted. See Percifield v. State, 93 Fla. 247, 111 So. 379; Dean v. State, 41 Fla. 291, 26 So. 628; Cooper vs. State, 82 Fla. 365, 90 So. 375.

Eeversed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Davis, J. J., concur. Brown, J., concurs in the opinion and judgment.

Filed under Eule 21-A.

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

Related

Percifield v. State
111 So. 519 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1927)
Dean v. State
41 Fla. 291 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1899)
Cooper v. State
90 So. 375 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1921)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
144 So. 839, 107 Fla. 382, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/torr-v-state-fla-1932.