STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Roosevelt ALLEN, Larry W. Edwards, Randy Heath, Elmore L. Henderson, Wallace Reed, Willie Singletary and Herman Cruse, Appellees.
Nos. 53675 to 53680
Supreme Court of Florida
July 20, 1978
Rehearing Denied September 27, 1978
362 So. 2d 10
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Karen M. Gottlieb and Elliot H. Scherker, Asst. Public Defenders, and Melvin Schaffer of Pilafian & Schaffer, Miami, for appellees.
PER CURIAM.
By consolidated appeals from the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, we are asked to review substantially identical orders which passed upon the constitutionality of Florida‘s theft statute,
“A person is guilty of theft if he obtains or uses, or endeavors to obtain or to use, the property of another with intent:
(a) To deprive the other person of a right to the property or a benefit therefrom.
(b) To appropriate the property to his own use or to the use of any person not entitled thereto.”
The trial judge found two features of the statute to be fatally defective. First, noting that the predecessor larceny statute specifically proscribed commission of the offense “with unlawful intent,”3 she ruled that the legislature‘s deletion of the word “unlawful” in this revised provision had the effect of eliminating the element of specific criminal intent, thereby contravening the requirements of due process. Second, she found that the term “endeavors” as used in
We find no evidence to support the notion that the 1977 legislature intended by its omission of the word “unlawful” to eliminate specific criminal intent as an element of this offense.4 At best, the deletion of that term signifies a return to the state of the law existing before 1975, when the immediate predecessor to
The orders of the trial court, dismissing the informations against appellees, are reversed, and these cases are remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
ENGLAND, C.J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON, HATCHETT and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur.
