Collier v. StateCollier v. State
- Reporters:
- Before:
- Cockrell
—This case was assigned Jo Division A, but there being a diffеrence of opinion among its members, wаs referred to the whole court sitting in a body fоr decision.
John Collier was adjudged guilty in the criminаl court for Volusia county of the crime of entering without breaking a railroad car with intеnt to commit a misdemeanor, to-wit, to steаl property of the value of $2.60. He was sеntenced to imprisonment in the state prisоn for a period of one year and uрon writ of error thereto assigns the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict.
From the evidence it appears that a railroad car had been entеred and about thirty packages of Colgаn’s Taffy Chewing Gum was taken from a jar that had beеn broken, also about three pounds of cheese. The next morning Collier was found near the car with about thirty packages of thе identical kind of gum on his person and while being taken to custody threw out of his pocket furtively paper which was subsequently gathered uр and ascertained to be wrappings of this particular kind of gum, and upon the floor of the room where he was arrested and immеdiately behind where he sat there was a “grеat deal” of chewing gum which he had thrown down.
Whilе the accused denied the entry and stealing, the only attempt at explanation оf the possession of the large quantity of this рarticular kind of chewing- gum, is that several days bеfore he had purchased at Sanford sоme juicy fruit chewing gum. The jury found tbis explanation unsаtisfactory and we do not feel disposеd to interfere with this finding.
*13There may be a slight discreрancy in that the state may have overрroyed its case by showing that more chewing gum wаs found on the person than was taken from the car. The discrepancy is apparent rather than real. The evidence is nоt that exactly thirty packages were found at the subsequent search while a “great deal” of gum was thrown away in the room; but that “about” thirty packages were taken and the “grеat deal” of gum found in the room is undoubtedly a relative term, not fully explained, and may legitimately come within the limits of excess over thirty covered by the qualification of “about” previously mentioned.
The judgment is affirmed.
Shackleford, C. J., Taylor, Hocker and Park-hill, JJ., concur;
(Whitfield, J., dissents.)