336 So. 2d 119 | Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 1976
Appellants-defendants Josey and Riley appeal judgments of conviction of malicious injury to the property of another, a road grader owned by Holmes County.
The primary issue posed by appellants is that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the Holmes County Grand Jury presentments.
The gist of the evidence adduced by the state is that Josey and Riley intentionally placed or caused to be placed metal filings and valve grinding compound into the engine of the road grader owned by Holmes County.
So, we return to the instant case. Why did Josey and Riley damage the instant road grader? What was their motive ? Surely the state had to adduce proof of the “malice” required by the “malicious” portion of the information, and just as surely the jury was entitled to be apprised of the state’s theory as to motive. A presentment is not of the evidentiary character of an indictment,
AFFIRMED.
. Sufficiency of the evidence is not challenged. We observe that the evidence overwhelmingly supports the verdicts of guilty.
. The question of expunging these presentments pursuant to holdings in State v. Interim Report of Grand Jury, 93 So.2d 99 (Fla.1957); In Re Gulf County Grand Jury, 224 So.2d 764 (Fla.App.lst 1969); and In Re Brevard Co. Grand Jury Int. Report, 249 So.2d 709 (Fla.App.4th 1971), was not raised and thus is not here involved.
. Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla.1959).
. Dodson v. State, 334 So.2d 305 (Fla.App. 1st 1976), opinion filed June 10, 1976, not yet reported.
. Colbert v. State, 320 So.2d 853 (Fla.App. 1st 1975).
. In Smith v. Stale, 48 Fla. 307, 37 So. 573 (1904), the Supreme Court held: “ . The indictment tended to show that the deceased was prosecuting the defendant for stealing his cattle, and furnished a strong motive for murder, and it was therefore both pertinent and admissible.” See also Beard v. State, 131 Fla. 512, 180 So. 1 (1938).