Possession Of Recently Stolen Property

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

• J.F. v. State
  889 So. 2d 130· Fla. 4th DCA· 2004-12-01 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the evidence presented at the probation revocation hearing was insufficient to support the revocation based on grand theft.
• United States v. Gallo
  543 F.2d 361· D.C. Cir.· 1976-08-26 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the jury instruction on knowledge was erroneous because it allowed a guilty verdict based solely on facts that would put a reasonable person on notice, rather than requiring proof that the defendant actually knew the goods were stolen or deliberately closed hi
• Spurgeon King v. State
  156 Fla. 817· Fla.· 1946-01-22 ·cited 24×
  Spurgeon King was convicted of receiving and concealing stolen whisky. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence sufficiently established King's knowledge that the whisky was stolen based on the suspicious circumstances of the transaction and hi
• P.N. v. State
  443 So. 2d 193· Fla. 3d DCA· 1983-12-13 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the juvenile's delinquency adjudication for grand theft, holding that his inconsistent explanations for possessing a stolen moped created a factual issue that did not dissipate the statutory presumption of guilty knowledge.
• Ciro Estevez v. State
  290 So. 2d 138· Fla. 3d DCA· 1974-02-26 ·cited 22×
  Estevez was convicted of breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit grand larceny and grand larceny itself, receiving concurrent three-year sentences. On appeal, he challenged the sufficiency of evidence and the imposition of multiple sentences for crimes arising from
• United States v. Barlow
  470 F.2d 1245· D.C. Cir.· 1972-10-02 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict the appellant of aiding and abetting theft of government property and second-degree burglary, as his actions demonstrated guilty knowledge and participation in the continuing asportation of the stolen goods.
• United States v. Tremont
  351 F.2d 144· 6th Cir.· 1965-09-30 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict and that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to transfer, refusing lie detector evidence, or in its jury instructions.
• Benny John Borghese v. State
  158 So. 2d 785· Fla. 3d DCA· 1963-12-20 ·cited 22×
  The unexplained possession of recently stolen property can sustain a larceny conviction.
• Gilbert v. United States
  215 F.2d 334· D.C. Cir.· 1954-07-22 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in denying the motion for a judgment of acquittal because the evidence, including the unexplained possession of recently stolen property, was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Harvey v. State
  129 Fla. 289· Fla.· 1937-09-20 ·cited 22×
  John Harvey was convicted of theft of a bull calf based on circumstantial evidence. On appeal, Harvey raised twenty-five issues challenging the sufficiency of the information, the evidence, the admission of expert testimony, physical evidence, prosecutorial conduct, and jury inst
• J.J. v. State
  463 So. 2d 1168· Fla. 3d DCA· 1984-11-27 ·cited 21×
  Juvenile's adjudication for petit theft reversed because his unrefuted explanation that a friend gave him the stolen moped rendered the circumstantial evidence insufficient as a matter of law.
• United States v. Miles
  468 F.2d 482· 3d Cir.· 1972-09-29 ·cited 21×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the arrest and seizure of evidence were lawful due to probable cause, the jury instruction on possession of recently stolen property did not violate the Fifth Amendment, and the evidence of flight was admissible.
• Patten v. State
  492 So. 2d 748· Fla. 2d DCA· 1986-08-01 ·cited 20×
  Possession of recently stolen property, if not satisfactorily explained, allows an inference that the possessor knew it was stolen, sufficient to uphold a grand theft conviction.
• King v. State
  431 So. 2d 272· Fla. 5th DCA· 1983-05-12 ·cited 20×
  Brent King appealed his conviction for dealing in stolen property, challenging the trial court's evidentiary rulings regarding impeachment by prior conviction and jury instructions about possession of stolen property. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, fin
• United States v. McGREGOR
  529 F.2d 928· 9th Cir.· 1976-01-09 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish that the coins were stolen and that the defendants knew they were stolen, and that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in restricting cross-examination.
• United States v. Dugan
  477 F.2d 140· 8th Cir.· 1973-04-20 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for possessing stolen goods, as the defendant exercised dominion and control over the goods and knew they were stolen. The court also held that the conviction was not barred by double jeopardy.
• United States v. Trice
  476 F.2d 89· 9th Cir.· 1973-03-30 ·cited 20×
  The court held that there was sufficient probable cause for the warrantless arrest and that the evidence seized was admissible. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict and that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or jury instructi
• United States v. Dillon
  446 F.2d 598· 5th Cir.· 1971-07-02 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial judge's jury instructions improperly commented on the evidence and effectively directed a verdict of guilt, exceeding the limits of fair comment.
• United States v. Penner
  425 F.2d 729· 5th Cir.· 1970-04-28 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial judge's participation did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• United States v. Prujansky
  415 F.2d 1045· 6th Cir.· 1969-09-18 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the omission of an instruction on an uncontroverted fact, where no objection was made, does not constitute plain error. Furthermore, the inference of guilty knowledge from possession of recently stolen property is permissible and does not shift the burden of p
• Cotton v. United States
  409 F.2d 1049· 10th Cir.· 1969-04-16 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction for intimidating a witness, reversing that conviction, but affirmed all other convictions.
• Fitts v. United States
  328 F.2d 844· 10th Cir.· 1964-02-28 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilt for interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle and that no prejudicial error was committed.
• Boone v. State
  711 So. 2d 594· Fla. 1st DCA· 1998-04-29 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the inference from possession of recently stolen property because the prosecution failed to establish a sufficient factual basis for the appellant's possession.
• Morgan v. State
  303 So. 2d 393· Fla. 2d DCA· 1974-11-06 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the jury's verdict was supported by sufficient evidence, including the possession of recently stolen property, and that the circumstantial evidence rule did not apply.
• United States v. Neumann
  887 F.2d 880· 8th Cir.· 1989-10-13 ·cited 18×
  The dissenting judge believes the trial court's comments on evidence constituted plain error and a directed verdict against the defendant.
• R.D.S. v. State
  446 So. 2d 1181· Fla. 3d DCA· 1984-03-20 ·cited 18×
  A 16-year-old juvenile was adjudicated delinquent for grand theft based on possession of a recently stolen moped with a removed identification number. The court reversed, holding that the juvenile's unrefuted explanation for purchasing the moped, combined with the absence of incr
• United States v. Mac van Cleave
  599 F.2d 954· 10th Cir.· 1979-06-18 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the admission of evidence concerning other criminal transactions was proper as it was an inseparable part of the crime charged or admissible under Rule 404(b) for motive, intent, and knowledge. The court also found the jury instructions adequate.
• United States v. Ortiz
  507 F.2d 1224· 6th Cir.· 1974-12-12 ·cited 18×
  The court held that while the admission of testimony regarding the defendant's prior arrest record was an error, it did not affect substantial rights given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• United States v. Kaylor
  491 F.2d 1127· 2d Cir.· 1973-10-15 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its conduct, evidentiary rulings, or identification procedures, and affirmed the convictions. However, a dissenting opinion argued for remand for resentencing under the Youth Corrections Act.
• Haskins v. United States
  433 F.2d 836· 10th Cir.· 1970-10-23 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, and that the identification procedures, while not ideal due to being raised on appeal, were supported by an independent source and did not violate due process.
• United States v. Winbush
  428 F.2d 357· 6th Cir.· 1970-06-04 ·cited 18×
  The court held that evidence found by a hospital aide during a private search is admissible, and that a one-month lapse between theft and discovery of stolen property is not too long to permit an inference of knowledge.
• United States v. Roscoe Cook
  419 F.2d 1306· 5th Cir.· 1969-12-18 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the jury instruction regarding the inference from possession of recently stolen mail was proper and did not violate the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights.
• Ashley v. United States
  413 F.2d 249· 5th Cir.· 1969-06-26 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the admission of a police report based on hearsay was sufficiently corroborated by business records, and the jury instruction regarding unexplained possession of recently stolen property was proper.
• Lampley v. State
  214 So. 2d 515· Fla. 3d DCA· 1968-09-24 ·cited 18×
  Samuel Lampley was convicted of uttering a forged check and receiving stolen property after presenting a forged check at a supermarket. The court reversed his convictions, finding that the state failed to prove essential elements of both offenses—specifically, that Lampley knew t
• Broom v. United States
  342 F.2d 419· 5th Cir.· 1965-03-12 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the jury was warranted in disbelieving the defendant's explanation for possessing a recently stolen automobile, based on suspicious circumstances and inconsistencies.
• Real v. United States
  326 F.2d 441· 10th Cir.· 1963-12-24 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the circumstantial evidence and unexplained possession of recently stolen property were sufficient to sustain the jury's conviction for theft.
• Royce Wethington v. State
  159 Fla. 670· Fla.· 1947-11-18 ·cited 18×
  Royce Wethington was convicted of grand larceny and breaking and entering in connection with a safe burglary in Orlando, Florida. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the conviction, finding the State's evidence insufficient to prove Wethington broke and entered the building or com
• Andrews v. United States
  157 F.2d 723· 5th Cir.· 1946-10-23 ·cited 18×
  The court held that evidence of possession of forged certificates and false testimony regarding their possession was sufficient to authorize a jury to find guilty knowledge.
• United States v. Fiore John Luciano and William Dunn
  343 F.2d 172· 4th Cir.· 1965-03-03 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction of both defendants for transporting a stolen vehicle interstate, and that their joint representation by counsel did not constitute a constitutional abridgment.
• Edwards v. United States
  D.D.C.· 1943-12-06 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the trial court had the power to permit counsel's withdrawal after the notice of appeal was filed, and that the appellant was not denied his constitutional right to counsel.
• Carnley v. State
  143 Fla. 756· Fla.· 1940-07-16 ·cited 17×
  Ed Carnley was convicted of stealing five hogs belonging to Henry C. Barnes and sentenced to three years in the state penitentiary. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, rejecting challenges to the sufficiency of evidence, the trial court's handling of character evid
• Bozeman v. State
  931 So. 2d 1006· Fla. 4th DCA· 2006-06-07 ·cited 16×
  A defendant who pushes a recently stolen automobile while another person steers and controls it exercises sufficient dominion and control to constitute joint possession, permitting a jury instruction that the defendant is presumed to have known the property was stolen unless he p
• Currington v. State
  711 So. 2d 218· Fla. 5th DCA· 1998-05-22 ·cited 16×
  Appellant Currington was convicted of dealing in stolen property and challenged a jury instruction on the inference arising from possession of recently stolen property as violating due process. The Florida appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that the instruction did
• Donnie Warren and Russell Lee Wilkerson v. State
  443 So. 2d 381· Fla. 1st DCA· 1983-12-30 ·cited 16×
  Warren and Wilkerson were convicted by jury of burglary and trafficking in stolen American Express Traveler's Cheques from a credit union. The appellate court reversed the burglary convictions due to insufficient evidence but affirmed the trafficking convictions, finding the stat
• United States v. Lavoie
  721 F.2d 407· 1st Cir.· 1983-11-23 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a prosecutor's comment, even if potentially ambiguous, did not impermissibly refer to the defendant's failure to testify, and the jury instructions on inferences from possession of recently stolen property were adequate.
• United States v. Johnson
  563 F.2d 936· 8th Cir.· 1977-10-25 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the defendant's consent to search was valid and that the jury instruction regarding possession of recently stolen property was proper. The court also found that the prosecutor's statement was not an impermissible comment on the defendant's silence.
• United States v. Brown
  541 F.2d 858· 10th Cir.· 1976-09-02 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict and that the jury instructions regarding the inference from possession of recently stolen property were proper and did not constitute plain error.
• United States v. Major Ellis Harris and Henry Harris
  528 F.2d 1327· 8th Cir.· 1975-12-31 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the initial stop of the vehicle was justified by reasonable suspicion, the warrantless search of the vehicle at the station house was permissible due to probable cause, and sufficient evidence supported the convictions for interstate transportation of a stolen
• United States v. Wilson
  523 F.2d 828· 8th Cir.· 1975-10-14 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove guilty knowledge and that the appellant was not denied due process by not having access to grand jury testimony without a specific request or showing of need.
• United States v. Lowery
  436 F.2d 1171· 5th Cir.· 1970-12-11 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the defendant's arrest, interrogation, and the search of his vehicle were lawful, and the jury instruction regarding the inference of knowledge from possession of recently stolen property was constitutional.