Published on:

Court Discusses Lesser Included Offenses


In this case, the Appellants were charged with informations of robbery and convicted of grand larceny. Since the informations contained no allegation of the value of the stolen property, the court reversed the conviction and remanded the case for entry of judgments of petit larceny only.

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said during the trial of the case, the evidence showed that the value of the property taken was over $100. The judge instructed the jury on robbery and the lesser included offenses of grand larceny and petit larceny. Immediately after the jury retired, the appellants objected to the charge of grand larceny.

In the case of Brown v. State, Fla.1968, 206 So.2d 377, lesser offenses were divided into four categories:

(1) Crimes divisible into degrees;

(2) Attempts to commit offenses;

(3) Offenses necessarily included in the offense charged; and

(4) Offenses which may or may not be included in the offense charged, depending on the accusatory pleading and the evidence.

In the case of State v. Anderson, Fla.1972, 270 So.2d 353, the court held that an instruction on a category (4) offense should not be given unless the accusatory pleading alleges all the elements of the lesser offense, to wit:

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the accusatory pleading must apprise the defendant of all offenses of which he may be convicted. This simply means that when the State makes a charge, ex parte though it may be, it is asserting that the defendant is guilty and may be convicted of that offense, all degrees thereunder when the offense is divided in degrees, the attempt to commit the offense, and any lesser offense which is an essential ingredient of the major crime charged.

In addition, it means that he may be convicted of any lesser offense, which, although not an essential ingredient of the major crime, Is spelled out in the accusatory pleading in that it alleged all of the elements of the lesser offense and the proof at trial supports the charge. . . . (Emphasis supplied.)

It is well-settled jurisprudence that Larceny is a necessarily included offense in the crime of robbery. However, grand larceny contains an element not present in the offense of robbery: that the value of the property stolen was one hundred dollars or more. Grand Larceny is not necessarily included in the offense of robbery, and jurisprudence requires that the accusatory pleading allege this additional element of value in order for a conviction of Grand Larceny to be sustained.

In accordance with the foregoing jurisprudence, Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, Robbery, ยง 2.06 includes the following language:

Degrees of Larceny

A Queens Drug Crime Lawyer said if, from the evidence, you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did steal, take and carry away the property described from the person alleged in the information (indictment) but are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the taking was accomplished by force, violence, assault or putting in fear you should find the defendant guilty of larceny, and

a. in this case the information (indictment) does not allege the value of the property to be one hundred dollars or more, so the verdict should find the defendant guilty of petit larceny.

The State argued that appellants waived this issue because the record fails to reveal a timely objection to the jury instructions. This case does not merely involve erroneous instructions. The defendants were convicted of a crime not charged in the informations. A Nassau County Drug Crime Lawyer said this is fundamental error as held in numerous cases, such as O’Neal v. State, Fla.App.2d 1975, 308 So.2d 569; Johnson v. State, Fla.App.2d 1969, 226 So.2d 884; Priester v. State, Fla.App.4th 1974, 294 So.2d 421.

Although the convictions of grand larceny cannot be sustained, petit larceny is an offense whose elements were alleged in the accusatory pleadings.

Upon review of the case, the court reversed the convictions and sentences for grand larceny and remanded the case with directions that judgments of conviction be entered against both appellants for petit larceny only.

Stephen Bilkis and Associates with its New York Petit Larceny Lawyers to fully support and argue your case. It can alleviate your plight by initially visiting any of its offices which are within New York Metropolitan area, including Corona, New York.

Contact Information