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. Gordon
  421 F.2d 1068· 5th Cir.· 1970-01-26 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the search warrant was validly issued based on probable cause derived from an agent's observation of items in plain view, and that the trial court did not err in its jury instructions regarding possession of recently stolen property, except for the valuation i
• United States v. Licausi
  413 F.2d 1118· 5th Cir.· 1969-06-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the denial of a mistrial was not reversible error and that the jury instructions regarding possession of recently stolen property were proper.
• Epps v. United States
  157 F.2d 11· D.C. Cir.· 1946-07-22 ·cited 15×
  The court held that there was no fatal variance between the indictment and the proof, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict.
• Bertone v. State
  870 So. 2d 923· Fla. 4th DCA· 2004-04-21 ·cited 14×
  Salvatore Bertone was convicted of dealing in stolen property after pawning two DeWalt saws that belonged to a friend. The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the conviction, holding that the circumstantial evidence of possession, without additional incriminating fac
• United States v. Louie Co Gunter
  631 F.2d 583· 8th Cir.· 1980-10-15 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial judge's questioning was permissible for clarification, the continuance granted was not an abuse of discretion, the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, and the defendant's absence from an in-chambers conference was not prejudicial.
• United States v. Callison
  577 F.2d 53· 8th Cir.· 1978-06-07 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the search warrant and subsequent search were valid, and that any errors in admitting evidence or in jury instructions were harmless given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• Williams v. State
  347 So. 2d 472· Fla. 1st DCA· 1977-06-30 ·cited 14×
  Gloria Williams appeals her conviction for petit larceny (her third such conviction), arguing the trial court erred by not granting a mistrial after the store manager testified that Williams "neither denied nor admitted the charge" when apprehended. The Florida appellate court af
• United States v. Joyner
  492 F.2d 650· D.C. Cir.· 1974-02-11 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the jury instructions regarding possession of recently stolen property did not improperly shift the burden of proof to the defendants, and that various other claims of error, including the admissibility of evidence and prosecutorial misconduct, were without me
• United States v. Marchbanks
  469 F.2d 72· 5th Cir.· 1972-11-01 ·cited 14×
  The court held that evidence of consummated robberies and the disposition of stolen property was properly admitted, and sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding that lives were placed in jeopardy.
• United States v. Sargis
  460 F.2d 1329· 8th Cir.· 1972-06-16 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the jury instructions regarding possession of recently stolen property and the definition of 'stolen' were proper, and that the prosecution's question about a police line-up did not warrant a mistrial.
• United States v. Bland
  432 F.2d 96· 5th Cir.· 1970-09-25 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the introduction of evidence concerning other vehicles, the admission of testimony regarding insurance compensation for a stolen vehicle, the jury instruction on the inference of knowledge from possession of recently stolen property, and the denial of access t
• United States v. Bridges
  406 F.2d 1051· 10th Cir.· 1969-02-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict of guilty under the Dyer Act.
• Marshall v. United States
  352 F.2d 1013· 9th Cir.· 1965-11-03 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the appellant did not consent to the search or seizure of his briefcase.
• Ward v. State
  124 Fla. 113· Fla.· 1936-03-12 ·cited 14×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a conviction for larceny of three cows, holding that the defendants forfeited their challenge to an allegedly incorrect jury charge by failing to properly preserve the objection at trial and in their motion for new trial.
• Singleton v. State
  105 So. 3d 542· Fla. 2d DCA· 2012-07-11 ·cited 13×
  Sean Singleton was convicted of burglary and grand theft based on circumstantial evidence that he was near stolen property stored in a rental truck and that his DNA was on a cigar found in the truck. The appellate court reversed, holding that the State's evidence was legally insu
• M.P.W. v. State
  702 So. 2d 591· Fla. 2d DCA· 1997-12-03 ·cited 13×
  A trial court must grant a judgment of acquittal when the State fails to present evidence from which a jury can exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, and the court commits error by misinterpreting witness testimony to create an admission not actually made.
• Scott v. State
  722 So. 2d 256· Fla. 5th DCA· 1998-12-11 ·cited 12×
  Bobby Scott was convicted of possessing contraband (cannabis) in a correctional facility. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed his conviction, holding that there was sufficient evidence of possession and that the failure to give a jury instruction on knowledge of the subst
• United States v. Gulledge
  469 F.2d 713· 5th Cir.· 1972-11-20 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence from warrantless searches and in its jury instructions, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• United States v. Miles LaROSE
  459 F.2d 361· 6th Cir.· 1972-04-27 ·cited 12×
  The court held that there was insufficient evidence to prove the appellant transported a stolen motor vehicle in interstate commerce, as required for conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2312.
• United States v. Brotherton
  427 F.2d 1286· 8th Cir.· 1970-06-24 ·cited 12×
  The court held that jury instructions permitting an inference of knowledge and interstate transportation from possession of recently stolen property do not violate the Fifth Amendment. The court also held that the jury's deliberation time was sufficient.
• United States v. Gennaro J. Coppola and John W. Connelly
  424 F.2d 991· 2d Cir.· 1970-04-17 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the jury could permissibly infer transportation of stolen securities into Connecticut from the fact of possession, but the evidence was insufficient to support a conspiracy to transport the securities out of Connecticut.
• Graham v. State
  229 So. 2d 616· Fla. 3d DCA· 1969-12-23 ·cited 12×
  Joseph Graham was convicted of buying, receiving, or concealing stolen property. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the State presented insufficient evidence of knowledge—mere possession of recently stolen property, without additional corroborating circum
• Rogers v. United States
  416 F.2d 926· 10th Cir.· 1969-10-09 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the jury instructions, when read as a whole, did not improperly remove the issue of possession from the jury, nor did they violate the appellant's constitutional rights.
• Smith v. United States
  413 F.2d 1121· 5th Cir.· 1969-07-24 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict and that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence or instructing the jury.
• United States v. Coleman
  420 F.2d 1313· D.C. Cir.· 1969-07-11 ·cited 12×
  The majority reversed the conviction and remanded for a Luck hearing, but the dissenting judge argued the conviction should be affirmed due to overwhelming evidence of guilt and harmless error.
• United States v. Wolosyn
  411 F.2d 550· 9th Cir.· 1969-04-25 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction for interstate transportation of stolen vehicles and that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence or refusing a jury instruction.
• Williams v. United States
  394 F.2d 821· 5th Cir.· 1968-05-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the co-defendant's statement was properly admitted for impeachment.
• United States v. Berry Banks
  370 F.2d 141· 4th Cir.· 1966-12-02 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the defendant was not denied a speedy trial and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• McKNIGHT v. United States
  309 F.2d 660· D.C. Cir.· 1962-10-25 ·cited 12×
  The court held that while the jury instruction regarding inference from exclusive possession of recently stolen property was inadequate, it did not constitute reversible error under Rule 52(b) given the lack of objection below.
• McABEE v. United States
  294 F.2d 703· D.C. Cir.· 1961-06-29 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court's errors, including improper consolidation of indictments and the giving of a 'missing witness' instruction, constituted plain error affecting substantial rights, requiring a new trial.
• Milford Garner v. State
  134 Fla. 252· Fla.· 1938-10-13 ·cited 12×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a larceny conviction, holding that the State failed to disprove the defendant's credible explanation for possessing recently stolen property. The court found the evidence insufficient and reliant on guesswork, necessitating a new trial.
• Omelio Valdez v. State
  492 So. 2d 750· Fla. 3d DCA· 1986-08-05 ·cited 11×
  The appellate court held that the circumstantial evidence, when considered with the defendant's unrefuted and not unreasonable exculpatory explanation, was insufficient as a matter of law to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Carpenter v. State
  213 So. 2d 738· Fla. 2d DCA· 1968-09-11 ·cited 11×
  The appellate court reversed a conviction because the jury was instructed that it could infer guilt from the unexplained possession of recently stolen property, which violates the defendant's right against self-incrimination. This ruling aligned with prior decisions from other Fl
• Kirkland v. State
  82 Fla. 118· Fla.· 1921-07-13 ·cited 11×
  Kirkland and Hale appealed their conviction for grand larceny of approximately $1,000 in merchandise stolen from a store. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that circumstantial evidence of the defendants' connection to recently stolen property, combined wi
• Jawara Ward v. State
  40 So. 3d 854· Fla. 4th DCA· 2010-07-14 ·cited 10×
  Jawara Ward was convicted of robbery and grand theft of a motor vehicle based partly on a jury instruction about possession of recently stolen property. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed his grand theft conviction because the trial court improperly instructed the jury
• In the Interest of M.M. v. State
  547 So. 2d 139· Fla. 1st DCA· 1989-02-14 ·cited 10×
  A juvenile was adjudicated delinquent for grand theft of a motorcycle based solely on recent possession and a statutory presumption, despite offering an unrefuted and reasonable explanation that he borrowed it from a friend. The appellate court reversed, holding that mere possess
• N.C., Jr. v. State
  478 So. 2d 1142· Fla. 1st DCA· 1985-11-21 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the unexplained possession of recently stolen property allows for an inference of guilt, and the trial court did not err in finding the defendant's explanation unsatisfactory.
• State v. FOX
  404 So. 2d 799· Fla. 3d DCA· 1981-10-06 ·cited 10×
• United States v. Luman
  624 F.2d 152· 10th Cir.· 1980-06-23 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's findings that the defendants knew the drill bits were stolen and that the sale was part of interstate commerce.
• United States v. Larson
  555 F.2d 673· 8th Cir.· 1977-05-26 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, and that the defendant's various claims regarding due process, speedy trial, search and seizure, discovery, and jury instructions were without merit.
• United States v. Baty
  486 F.2d 240· 5th Cir.· 1973-10-17 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the warrantless search of the automobile was justified by probable cause and exigent circumstances, and the defendant's admissions were voluntary and admissible.
• United States v. Rispo
  470 F.2d 1099· 3d Cir.· 1973-01-02 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the jury charge regarding possession of recently stolen property was proper, and that joint representation did not deny effective assistance of counsel.
• United States v. Johnson
  466 F.2d 537· 8th Cir.· 1972-09-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in providing oral jury instructions and in instructing the jury that it could infer guilt from possession of recently stolen property.
• United States v. McCALL
  460 F.2d 952· D.C. Cir.· 1972-03-23 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions of both appellants for armed robbery, assault with a dangerous weapon, and possession of an unregistered firearm, and that the jury instructions, while omitting a specific model instruction, were not rever
• United States v. Gale Hearold Johnson
  442 F.2d 318· 8th Cir.· 1971-05-13 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the traveler's checks were admissible, the jury instructions regarding possession of stolen property were proper, and the value of the stolen money orders was sufficiently established.
• United States v. Lawrence
  427 F.2d 95· 5th Cir.· 1970-05-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that alleged errors in the jury charge did not constitute plain error, and therefore affirmed the conviction.
• United States v. Ross
  424 F.2d 1016· 4th Cir.· 1970-04-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the affidavit supporting the search warrant was sufficient because it contained corroboration from the agent's personal observation and knowledge of a crime, satisfying the requirements of Aguilar and Spinelli.
• Newbold v. State
  229 So. 2d 876· Fla. 3d DCA· 1969-11-12 ·cited 10×
  James Newbold appeals his conviction for buying, receiving, or concealing stolen property (credit cards) and petit larceny following a bench trial. The District Court of Appeal affirmed the felony conviction, rejecting his arguments that the search was illegal and that evidence w
• Crone v. United States
  411 F.2d 251· 5th Cir.· 1969-05-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the arrest and search were lawful, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• United States v. Williams
  405 F.2d 14· 4th Cir.· 1968-11-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the inference drawn from unexplained possession of recently stolen property is permissible and does not violate the Fifth Amendment, nor is the evidence insufficient to support a conviction for larceny from the person.