Legal Opinion

Miller v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided June 28, 1968No. Nos. 67-253, 67-324PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MANN, Judge.

The only testimony relative to value during the trial of these defendants for grand larceny and breaking and entering a dwelling house with intent to commit grand larceny is the following:

“Q. Would you tell the Jury what was missing?

A. A stereo, two TV’s, á Hallicrafter ship-to-shore radio, a watch, some records.

Q. All right. And what value did you place on all of this ?

A. Eight hundred.

Q. Eight hundred dollars ?

A. (Witness nodded affirmatively.)”

This is insufficient. Suarez v. State, 136 So.2d 367 (2d D.C.A.Fla.1962).

The other points raised by appellants are without merit.…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Suarez v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1962

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Platt v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1974
  2. Smart v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1973
  3. Singleton v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1972

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API