Torr v. State

144 So. 839, 107 Fla. 382
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided December 6, 1932·Published

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

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

144 So. 839 (Torr v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)