Possession Of Recently Stolen Property

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

• United States v. Johnson
  515 F.2d 730· 7th Cir.· 1975-05-09 ·cited 41×
  The dissenting judge holds that the trial judge erred by not severing the defendant or providing a cautionary instruction regarding evidence of a separate conspiracy, requiring reversal.
• United States v. Payne
  467 F.2d 828· 5th Cir.· 1972-01-01 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's findings regarding the value of the stolen property and the defendant's knowledge, and that evidence of other stolen property was properly admitted to show knowledge.
• Asa Hurrial Minor, Jr. v. United States
  375 F.2d 170· 8th Cir.· 1967-03-13 ·cited 40×
  The court held that a defendant who knowingly and intelligently waives the right to counsel and represents himself must accept the consequences of his actions, and errors not preserved below are not reviewable absent plain error.
• Rubie Charles Jenkins v. United States
  361 F.2d 615· 10th Cir.· 1966-05-26 ·cited 40×
  A defendant cannot be guilty of both bank robbery and receiving the property stolen in that robbery; jury instructions must reflect this.
• United States v. Wiley Rufus Ward
  552 F.2d 1080· 5th Cir.· 1977-05-13 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that the prosecutor's comments during closing argument did not constitute an impermissible comment on the appellants' failure to testify.
• United States v. Evanchik
  413 F.2d 950· 2d Cir.· 1969-07-16 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdicts of guilty for transporting stolen goods in interstate commerce and that the trial court did not err in denying discovery motions or in its jury instructions.
• Glavin v. United States
  396 F.2d 725· 9th Cir.· 1968-06-07 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to withdraw counsel, denying the motion to suppress evidence, admitting documents, or in its jury instructions regarding possession of recently stolen property.
• Battaglia v. United States
  205 F.2d 824· 4th Cir.· 1953-07-16 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the jury charge allowing an inference of guilt from the unexplained possession of a recently stolen vehicle, when considered with other evidence, was permissible.
• Smith v. State
  394 So. 2d 407· Fla.· 1980-11-20 ·cited 36×
  The court held that Florida Standard Jury Instruction, Criminal Cases, 2.07, concerning unexplained possession of recently stolen property, does not violate a defendant's Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.
• United States v. Cameron
  460 F.2d 1394· 5th Cir.· 1972-06-01 ·cited 36×
• Pigman v. United States
  407 F.2d 237· 8th Cir.· 1969-03-04 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the defendant's conviction for interstate transportation of stolen goods and a stolen vehicle, even though the alleged principal was dismissed due to insufficient evidence.
• Anderson v. United States
  406 F.2d 529· 8th Cir.· 1969-02-19 ·cited 36×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence from which a jury could infer that the defendant knew the bottles were stolen and that their value exceeded $5,000, and that the jury instructions were proper.
• Gregory v. United States
  364 F.2d 210· 10th Cir.· 1966-07-19 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the appellant's conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and that his procedural objections regarding counsel, delay, and evidence variance were without merit.
• Channell v. State
  107 So. 2d 284· Fla. 2d DCA· 1958-10-01 ·cited 35×
  A judgment of conviction for receiving stolen property is materially defective if it omits the element that the accused knew the goods were stolen; verdicts containing reference to specific counts (e.g., 'as to Count II') are responsive to charges when construed in light of the i
• Kilkrease v. State
  96 Fla. 264· Fla.· 1928-07-17 ·cited 35×
  Roy Kilkrease was convicted of breaking and entering a store based primarily on his possession of stolen property, but the Florida Supreme Court reversed because unimpeached alibi evidence and credible witness testimony explaining his possession of the goods rendered the convicti
• Jackson v. State
  736 So. 2d 77· Fla. 4th DCA· 1999-06-09 ·cited 34×
  Gregory Jackson was convicted by jury of grand theft of a motor vehicle and possession of a motor vehicle with an altered VIN number after police stopped him driving a stolen Cadillac. The Fourth District reversed both convictions, holding that the state's evidence was insufficie
• Beufve v. United States
  374 F.2d 123· 5th Cir.· 1967-03-08 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the jury instruction regarding the inference from unexplained possession of a recently stolen vehicle was proper, and the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
• Garrison v. United States
  353 F.2d 94· 10th Cir.· 1965-11-03 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the trial court did not err in its jury instructions.
• Miller v. United States
  320 F.2d 767· D.C. Cir.· 1963-06-14 ·cited 34×
  The dissenting judge would not reverse based on a jury instruction regarding flight, finding it was not plain error and the instruction was adequate.
• Guerrero v. State
  532 So. 2d 75· Fla. 3d DCA· 1988-10-18 ·cited 32×
  Alberto Guerrero was convicted of second-degree grand theft of a car based largely on his unexplained possession of recently stolen property. The Florida Third District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the trial court erred in precluding Guerrero from cross-examining the ar
• Goodwin v. United States
  347 F.2d 793· D.C. Cir.· 1965-05-20 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the conviction of Paul Vaughn must be reversed because his mere presence in the car with stolen goods was insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, while the convictions of the other appellants were affirmed.
• Loyd Carroll Grandsinger v. United States
  332 F.2d 80· 10th Cir.· 1964-05-22 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its voir dire questioning and that its instructions and evidentiary rulings were proper.
• United States v. Allegrucci
  299 F.2d 811· 3d Cir.· 1962-02-21 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the trial court's failure to allow the defendant to make a statement before sentencing was an error requiring remand, but other alleged errors were either harmless or without merit.
• Yielding v. United States
  173 F.2d 46· 5th Cir.· 1949-03-08 ·cited 32×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the convictions of Mildred Yielding and Truman Gaddis for receiving and transporting stolen automobiles in interstate commerce.
• Walker v. State
  896 So. 2d 712· Fla.· 2005-02-24 ·cited 31×
  The Florida Supreme Court addressed whether the standard jury instruction on possession of recently stolen property constitutes an impermissible comment on the evidence. The court held that the instruction is constitutional and permissible, affirming Walker's burglary conviction.
• Bronson v. State
  926 So. 2d 480· Fla. 2d DCA· 2006-04-28 ·cited 30×
  Ricky Joe Bronson Jr. appealed his burglary and theft convictions, arguing insufficient circumstantial evidence supported his conviction. The court reversed, finding that the State failed to establish exclusive possession of stolen property and did not refute a reasonable hypothe
• Haugabrook v. State
  827 So. 2d 1065· Fla. 2d DCA· 2002-10-11 ·cited 30×
  Michael Haugabrook appealed four convictions arising from a drug-related burglary and theft. The Florida Second District Court of Appeal affirmed his convictions for dealing in stolen property and obtaining money from a second-hand dealer by fraud, but reversed his convictions fo
• United States v. Neville
  516 F.2d 1302· 8th Cir.· 1975-05-20 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the jury instruction regarding 'major parts' was proper and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions under the Dyer Act.
• United States v. Hamilton
  457 F.2d 95· 3d Cir.· 1972-03-13 ·cited 30×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's guilty verdict and that the trial judge did not err in denying the motion for a new trial or the continuance.
• United States v. Turner
  442 F.2d 1146· 8th Cir.· 1971-05-20 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the probable cause for arrest, jury instructions, and denial of a Jencks Act statement were not grounds for appeal.
• United States v. Alphonso T. Johnson
  433 F.2d 1160· D.C. Cir.· 1970-09-04 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the circumstantial evidence, including the defendant's possession of a vehicle constructed from stolen parts, was insufficient to infer theft beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Nasse
  432 F.2d 1293· 7th Cir.· 1970-07-31 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy convictions and that most searches were lawful or any errors were harmless. It affirmed the convictions of the appellants.
• Teel v. United States
  407 F.2d 604· 8th Cir.· 1969-02-28 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that the appellant knowingly received stolen government property and that the jury instruction regarding possession of recently stolen property was warranted.
• Rodgers v. United States
  402 F.2d 830· 9th Cir.· 1968-10-28 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the government's own evidence, which established the apparent validity of the defendant's title to the vehicle, contradicted the inferences necessary to prove the defendant knew the vehicle was stolen, thus the evidence was insufficient to support the convicti
• Ferguson v. State
  157 Fla. 324· Fla.· 1946-04-23 ·cited 30×
  Clarence Ferguson was convicted of grand larceny after a golf club member's watch went missing while in the clubhouse. Ferguson was found in Los Angeles attempting to pawn the stolen watch, and the court upheld his conviction based on his possession of recently stolen property co
• Kemp v. State
  146 Fla. 101· Fla.· 1941-02-11 ·cited 30×
  F. T. Kemp was convicted of larceny of a bull after admittedly taking it openly and without concealment to service a milk cow. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that where a taking is open with no subsequent concealment and the defendant provides an explanation, clear a
• Wilson v. State
  884 So. 2d 74· Fla. 2d DCA· 2004-04-14 ·cited 29×
  Jerry Wilson appeals his convictions for grand theft and dealing in stolen property following a bench trial. The court affirms the dealing in stolen property conviction but reverses the grand theft conviction, finding that dual convictions for both offenses relating to the same s
• Cloud v. United States
  361 F.2d 627· 8th Cir.· 1966-06-10 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the jury instructions were proper, affirming the defendant's conviction.
• United States v. Johnpoll
  739 F.2d 702· 2d Cir.· 1984-06-18 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the admission of Swiss deposition testimony was proper, and minor deviations in responding to jury inquiries were harmless errors. However, the court found merit in the defendant's argument regarding multiplicitous counts.
• A. R. v. State
  393 So. 2d 1174· Fla. 3d DCA· 1981-02-10 ·cited 28×
  The court held that a prima facie case was not presented, requiring reversal of delinquency adjudications.
• United States v. Reed
  414 F.2d 435· 5th Cir.· 1969-08-01 ·cited 28×
  The dissenting judge held that the trial judge's comments to the defendant and his witness regarding perjury constituted plain error, violating due process and requiring reversal of the conviction.
• Freije v. United States
  386 F.2d 408· 1st Cir.· 1967-12-18 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the jury instruction regarding possession of recently stolen property was inadequate because it did not sufficiently instruct the jury to consider the defendants' explanation of their possession as employees before drawing an inference of guilt. The court also
• McINTOSH v. United States
  341 F.2d 448· 8th Cir.· 1965-02-24 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient for the jury to infer that the defendant possessed the stolen tractor, transported it in interstate commerce, and knew it was stolen.
• United States v. Thomas
  676 F.2d 239· 7th Cir.· 1980-07-24 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict Thomas, Maddox, and Roberts on three counts of violating 18 U.S.C. § 2313, but reversed Robert White's conviction on Count II due to insufficient evidence of his involvement.
• United States v. Beathune
  527 F.2d 696· 10th Cir.· 1975-12-31 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying a motion for severance, nor did it violate defendants' constitutional rights by failing to preserve all grand jury testimony. It also found no error in admitting evidence of prior criminal activity to show course of condu
• United States v. Stanley
  433 F.2d 637· 5th Cir.· 1970-10-27 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the government presented sufficient evidence to support the conviction and that the trial court's jury charge regarding punishment was not reversible error.
• United States v. Hood
  422 F.2d 737· 7th Cir.· 1970-02-13 ·cited 26×
  The affidavit supporting the search warrants was inadequate because it failed to provide sufficient underlying circumstances to establish the reliability of the informants and the probable cause to believe stolen property was on the premises.
• United States v. Hart
  407 F.2d 1087· 2d Cir.· 1969-02-27 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing an anticipatory ruling on the admissibility of statements for impeachment, and that the principle announced in Simmons v. United States should not be given retroactive application.
• Overton v. United States
  405 F.2d 168· 5th Cir.· 1968-12-30 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove guilty knowledge and that the denial of a continuance was not an abuse of discretion.
• Young v. State
  203 So. 2d 650· Fla. 4th DCA· 1967-11-14 ·cited 26×
  Robert E. Young was convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony based on a jury instruction allowing an inference of guilt from his unexplained possession of stolen property. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the instruction violate