85 Fla. 413 | Fla. | 1923
The plaintiff in error and two others were indicted for the larceny of an automobile. A former conviction was reversed because an erroneous charge was given that related to the burden of proof and may reasonably have, been harmful. Grooms v. State, 83 Fla. 547, 92 South. Rep. 153.
This writ of error was taken to a subsequent conviction, after a severance of the'defendants was had.
. The court gave the following charge: “Larceny is the felonious stealing, taking and carrying away of the property of another with intent to deprive the owner of his possession thereof. ’ ’
It is contended that the charge is fatally defective in failing to state as a part of the definition of larceny that the property was taken “without the consent of the owner’,” and that in view of the evidence the charge “was no doubt instrumental in causing a verdict of guilty.” The statute provides punishment for “whoever commits larceny by stealing of the property of another.” ‘ Sec. 5122, Rev. Gen. Stats. 1920. The word “stealing” implies a taking and asportation without the consent of the owner of the property stolen.
The words “felonious stealing ”• are used in the charge defining “larceny'and “stealing” is a taking “without right or leave, with intent-to keep wrongfully.” Webster’s Dict.; Baldwin v. State, 46 Fla. 115, 35 South. Rep. 220. ‘' Felonious ’ ’ means ‘ ‘ with intent to commit a crime. ’ ’ Webster’s Diet: The definition of “larceny” as given in the charge is one that in substknce’is frequently given in
The charges given with -reference to the possession of property recently stolen and as to the concert of action between the three persons indicted, with reference to stealing the automobile were proper under the law and the facts and circumstances adduced in evidence.
The chai’ges .refused were either incorrect on the evidence. or sufficiexxtly covered by charges given. .
Other contentions xxeed no discussion.
Affirmed.