Possession Of Recently Stolen Property

352 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Blanco v. State
  452 So. 2d 520· Fla.· 1984-06-07 ·cited 211×
  Omar Blanco appeals his convictions for first-degree murder and armed burglary, and his death sentence, challenging the lawfulness of his arrest, the admission of identification testimony and other evidence, jury instructions, and the propriety of the death penalty. The Florida S
• Herman v. United States
  289 F.2d 362· 5th Cir.· 1961-04-12 ·cited 184×
  The court held that the trial judge's active participation did not render the trial unfair, and the evidence was sufficient to convict on the substantive charge, but the conspiracy conviction failed due to the acquittal of co-conspirators.
• State v. Young
  217 So. 2d 567· Fla.· 1968-12-10 ·cited 174×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed the Fourth District Court of Appeal's decision that a jury instruction on inferring guilt from unexplained possession of recently stolen goods violated the Fifth Amendment under Miranda. The court held that such circumstantial evidence instructi
• United States v. DE Sisto
  329 F.2d 929· 2d Cir.· 1964-03-20 ·cited 152×
  The court held that prior consistent identifications, even if not under oath, are admissible as substantive evidence, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• Barfield v. United States
  229 F.2d 936· 5th Cir.· 1956-02-10 ·cited 130×
  The court held that the presumption of knowledge of stolen property from mere possession, particularly in the context of a hitchhiker temporarily driving a vehicle, is insufficient to sustain a conviction without additional corroborating circumstances.
• United States v. Davis
  487 F.2d 112· 5th Cir.· 1973-10-16 ·cited 109×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no prejudicial error in the trial proceedings regarding speedy trial rights, evidence admission, co-conspirator testimony, photographic displays, or evidentiary rulings.
• United States v. Bullock
  451 F.2d 884· 5th Cir.· 1971-11-08 ·cited 95×
  The court affirmed Rodriguez's convictions on all counts, but reversed Bullock's conviction on Count Three due to insufficient evidence of interstate transportation.
• Schwachter v. United States
  237 F.2d 640· 6th Cir.· 1956-11-02 ·cited 92×
  The court held that it was prejudicial error for the trial judge to remove the factual issue of whether the car was moving in interstate commerce from the jury's consideration.
• United States v. Lefkowitz
  284 F.2d 310· 2d Cir.· 1960-11-10 ·cited 90×
  The court held that prejudicial errors in jury instructions regarding the burden of proof for possession of recently stolen goods required reversal of the convictions.
• Pendergrast v. United States
  416 F.2d 776· D.C. Cir.· 1969-01-31 ·cited 86×
  The court held that while the trial court's ruling on the defendant's right to testify at a suppression hearing without incriminating himself at trial was erroneous under later Supreme Court decisions, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the defendant's trial
• Sewell v. United States
  406 F.2d 1289· 8th Cir.· 1969-02-24 ·cited 84×
  The court held that the defendant's arrest was lawful, and the jury instructions regarding aiding and abetting and possession of recently stolen property were proper.
• United States v. Martinez
  466 F.2d 679· 5th Cir.· 1972-09-11 ·cited 81×
  The court held that the jury charge allowing an inference that securities were stolen from the mails based on possession of stolen securities and knowledge of their stolen character was error.
• State v. Graham
  238 So. 2d 618· Fla.· 1970-07-22 ·cited 78×
  The Florida Supreme Court reviewed a reversal of a stolen property conviction by the Third District Court of Appeal, addressing whether unexplained possession of recently stolen goods alone is sufficient to prove guilty knowledge. The Court affirmed the District Court's reversal,
• United States v. Fench
  470 F.2d 1234· D.C. Cir.· 1972-10-02 ·cited 77×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting rebuttal evidence of prior suspicious acts for limited purposes and in providing a cautionary instruction during the jury charge, and that sufficient evidence supported the convictions.
• Wheeler v. United States
  382 F.2d 998· 10th Cir.· 1967-09-18 ·cited 76×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict and that the trial court did not err in its rulings regarding jury instructions, admission of evidence, or venue.
• United States v. Eley
  723 F.2d 1522· 11th Cir.· 1984-01-30 ·cited 75×
  The court held that cumulative punishments for theft and interstate transportation of stolen goods do not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause when Congress intended them as separate offenses, and that a defendant's incredible explanation for possession of stolen goods, combined wi
• Aron v. United States
  382 F.2d 965· 8th Cir.· 1967-09-05 ·cited 66×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for receiving stolen property, and the search warrant, while imperfectly describing the items seized, was validly executed under the circumstances.
• Jalbert v. State
  95 So. 2d 589· Fla.· 1957-06-05 ·cited 66×
  The court held that the description of property in a judicial sale was sufficient to transfer title, and that the intervenors failed to establish their claim to the west half of the abandoned right of way.
• Turner v. State
  99 Fla. 246· Fla.· 1930-02-03 ·cited 65×
  Turner and Thomas were convicted of breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to steal property valued over fifty dollars. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, rejecting arguments that the evidence was insufficient and that juror misconduct warranted a new trial.
• Wangrow v. United States (two cases)
  399 F.2d 106· 8th Cir.· 1968-07-22 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the joinder of offenses and defendants was permissible and not prejudicial, and that evidence obtained through searches was lawful, affirming the convictions.
• Simpson v. United States
  346 F.2d 291· 10th Cir.· 1965-01-19 ·cited 62×
  The court held that evidence obtained through unlawful searches and seizures, including information derived from those searches, should have been suppressed.
• United States v. Burns
  597 F.2d 939· 5th Cir.· 1979-06-28 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's guilty verdicts, and the district court erred in entering judgments of acquittal based on an incorrect standard.
• United States v. Cassius Carter
  491 F.2d 625· 5th Cir.· 1974-03-22 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the trial court erred in excluding defendant's testimony regarding conversations about a stolen vehicle and in delivering a prejudicial supplemental jury charge on circumstantial evidence.
• United States v. McCARTHY
  473 F.2d 300· 2d Cir.· 1972-12-08 ·cited 60×
  The court held that evidence of participation in hijacking was admissible to prove knowledge of stolen goods, prosecutorial comments on a defendant's failure to display a tattoo were harmless error, arrests were supported by probable cause, jury instructions on possession were ad
• Smith v. State
  378 So. 2d 313· Fla. 5th DCA· 1980-01-02 ·cited 56×
  Johnny Lee Smith was convicted of burglary and robbery after a pocket knife and fingerprints were found linking him to the victim's apartment. On appeal, Smith challenged the prosecutor's closing argument and jury instruction on unexplained possession of stolen property as improp
• LEE v. United States
  363 F.2d 469· 8th Cir.· 1966-07-21 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the warrantless arrest and search of the defendant were lawful because they were based on probable cause, and the jury instruction regarding the inference of guilty knowledge from possession of recently stolen property was proper.
• Orser v. United States
  362 F.2d 580· 5th Cir.· 1966-05-06 ·cited 56×
• United States v. Jones
  418 F.2d 818· 8th Cir.· 1969-09-24 ·cited 54×
  The evidence presented was sufficient to support a bank robbery conviction, and the conviction should not be overturned on grounds of insufficient evidence.
• Fitzpatrick v. United States
  410 F.2d 513· 5th Cir.· 1969-04-30 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilty for interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle.
• Harding v. United States
  337 F.2d 254· 8th Cir.· 1964-10-21 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the appellant's assignments of error were not properly preserved for review due to failure to make timely and specific objections, and that no plain error was committed.
• United States v. McGANN
  431 F.2d 1104· 5th Cir.· 1970-08-24 ·cited 50×
• United States v. Zarattini
  552 F.2d 753· 7th Cir.· 1977-03-30 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the grand jury process was not abused, discovery rules were followed, evidentiary rulings were proper, and jury instructions were adequate, leading to the affirmance of the convictions.
• United States v. Lamont S. Carter
  522 F.2d 666· D.C. Cir.· 1975-07-18 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the warrantless search of appellant Patterson's attic was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and the admission of seized items was error. It also found that the jury instruction allowing inference of guilt from possession of stolen property was erroneous
• United States v. Wolfenbarger
  426 F.2d 992· 6th Cir.· 1970-05-15 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for receiving a stolen motor vehicle, as it allowed for inferences of possession and guilty knowledge.
• United States v. Riso
  405 F.2d 134· 7th Cir.· 1968-12-27 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the defendant's arrest was based on probable cause, the search of his car trunk was valid, the government proved the painting's value exceeded $5,000, and there was sufficient evidence of his knowledge that the painting was stolen.
• United States v. Strauss
  678 F.2d 886· 11th Cir.· 1982-06-11 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the trial court's jury instructions and admission of coconspirator statements were not reversible error, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• United States v. Knight
  451 F.2d 275· 5th Cir.· 1971-10-04 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the evidence was not the fruit of an illegal search and seizure, the indictment was sufficient, the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and the trial court properly admitted documents and gave jury instructions.
• Dusky ARD v. State
  108 So. 2d 38· Fla.· 1959-01-07 ·cited 46×
  Dusky ARD was convicted of receiving stolen property after the prosecutor improperly commented during closing argument that ARD had failed to provide a reasonable explanation at trial. The Florida Supreme Court held that when a defendant is found in possession of recently stolen
• Morandy v. United States
  170 F.2d 5· 9th Cir.· 1948-10-11 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the jury was properly instructed that unexplained possession of recently stolen property in another state warrants an inference of guilt.
• United States v. Higginbotham
  539 F.2d 17· 9th Cir.· 1976-07-19 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the appellant's constitutional rights were preserved, and the conviction was affirmed.
• United States v. Maynard John Verdoorn
  528 F.2d 103· 8th Cir.· 1976-01-13 ·cited 44×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on evidence, jury instructions, or procedural matters.
• United States v. Smith
  446 F.2d 200· 4th Cir.· 1971-08-03 ·cited 44×
  The court held that evidence of another crime was admissible to show knowledge and intent, and that an instruction allowing an inference of guilty knowledge from possession of recently stolen property was proper.
• Kramer v. United States
  408 F.2d 837· 8th Cir.· 1969-04-02 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its jury instructions, as the defendant waived objections by failing to raise them and the evidence of possession was sufficient.
• Garcia v. State
  899 So. 2d 447· Fla. 4th DCA· 2005-04-06 ·cited 43×
  Jorge Garcia was convicted by jury of burglary, grand theft, and trespass after being found in a van containing stolen property. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the burglary and theft convictions, holding that the state failed to present sufficient circumstantial evi
• Scobee v. State
  488 So. 2d 595· Fla. 1st DCA· 1986-05-05 ·cited 43×
  Gary Scobee was convicted of grand theft after being found in possession of recently stolen property taken from the Anderson home. The First District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction but reversed and remanded the sentence because the trial court's reasons for departing fro
• United States v. Cousins
  427 F.2d 382· 9th Cir.· 1970-05-28 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for possessing stolen goods from an interstate shipment, and that the goods remained in interstate commerce until accepted by the consignee.
• Coleman v. State
  466 So. 2d 395· Fla. 2d DCA· 1985-03-27 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the jury was entitled to find the appellant's explanation for possessing recently stolen property unsatisfactory, even if unrefuted, when the explanation was not patently reasonable and other evidence cast doubt upon it.
• Ridley v. State
  407 So. 2d 1000· Fla. 5th DCA· 1981-12-23 ·cited 42×
  The court held that while possession of recently stolen property can support an inference of burglary and theft, a defendant cannot be convicted of both grand theft and trafficking in the same stolen property.
• Urquhart v. State
  211 So. 2d 79· Fla. 2d DCA· 1968-05-29 ·cited 42×
  William Urquhart was convicted of buying, receiving, or aiding in the concealment of stolen property based on evidence including items found on his person and in the home where he rented a room. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the conviction, finding two independent
• Massey v. United States
  358 F.2d 782· 10th Cir.· 1966-04-05 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the arrest was complete when the officer stopped and searched the appellant, making the contemporaneous search lawful. It also held that the appellant waived any objection to the introduction of the 'secret number' by raising the issue himself and that the tri