Possession Of Recently Stolen Property

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

• Shaw v. State
  209 So. 2d 477· Fla. 1st DCA· 1968-04-18 ·cited 10×
  Ronald Shaw was convicted of automobile larceny based on evidence of his exclusive possession of a recently stolen car. On appeal, Shaw challenged a jury instruction on unexplained possession of recently stolen property as a comment on his failure to testify, but the court affirm
• Andrea v. State
  82 Fla. 313· Fla.· 1921-10-24 ·cited 10×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a conviction for grand larceny, holding that the jury was entitled to disbelieve the defendant's explanation for possessing recently stolen goods. The case emphasizes that a defendant's explanation for possession is a question of fact for the ju
• Jackson v. State
  49 Fla. 3· Fla.· 1905-01-01 ·cited 10×
  Three defendants were convicted of breaking and entering a smokehouse with intent to commit felony theft of bacon. On appeal, they challenged the sufficiency of evidence, but the Florida Supreme Court affirmed their convictions, finding sufficient evidence of guilt based on posse
• Kittles v. State
  897 So. 2d 517· Fla. 4th DCA· 2005-03-02 ·cited 9×
  Warren Kittles was convicted of grand theft after stolen jewelry from a burglary was found in his vehicle. The Florida appellate court affirmed, holding that possession of recently stolen property, combined with suspicious conduct and an unreasonable explanation, satisfied the st
• State v. Grimmage
  522 So. 2d 523· Fla. 2d DCA· 1988-03-23 ·cited 9×
  Florida appealed the trial court's dismissal of burglary, grand theft, and felonious possession of a firearm charges against Grimmage. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court prematurely dismissed the charges and that a presumption of knowledge that property wa
• United States v. Coggins
  433 F.2d 1357· D.C. Cir.· 1970-09-04 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the inference of guilt from possession of recently stolen property can extend to all items stolen in a single act, even if only some are found in the accused's possession, provided the single act of taking is proven.
• In re Standard Jury Instructions IN Crim. Cases-Instruction 14.2
  121 So. 3d 520· Fla.· 2013-08-29 ·cited 8×
  The Florida Supreme Court authorized for interim publication and use an amended jury instruction (14.2) for the crime of dealing in stolen property, implemented in light of the Court's decision in Williams v. State requiring specific jury instructions when both theft and dealing
• Lynch v. State
  829 So. 2d 371· Fla. 4th DCA· 2002-11-06 ·cited 8×
  Brett Lynch appealed his convictions for aggravated fleeing and eluding and grand theft of a motor vehicle, arguing the trial court erred by denying a special jury instruction that mere presence as an after-acquired passenger in a stolen vehicle with knowledge of theft is insuffi
• Maury Barnlund v. State
  724 So. 2d 632· Fla. 5th DCA· 1998-12-31 ·cited 8×
  The court reversed convictions for dealing in stolen property and grand theft because they arose from the same course of conduct, but affirmed the conviction for burglary, finding the issue of insufficient evidence was not preserved for appeal.
• United States v. Hankins
  931 F.2d 1256· 8th Cir.· 1991-04-26 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the defendant's convictions for armed bank robbery, use of a firearm, and escape, but remanded for resentencing and consideration of restitution.
• United States v. Markus C. Johnson
  741 F.2d 854· 6th Cir.· 1984-08-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the circumstantial evidence, including the defendant's inconsistent statements and opportunity to steal, was sufficient to support a jury's inference that he knew the gun was stolen from the mail.
• Kinnon v. State
  439 So. 2d 958· Fla. 3d DCA· 1983-10-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the prosecutor's argument, when viewed in context, did not improperly comment on the defendant's Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.
• Williams v. State
  416 So. 2d 493· Fla. 5th DCA· 1982-07-07 ·cited 8×
  Donald Williams was convicted of escape from jail custody, but the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed because the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Williams was in lawful custody, which is an essential element of the escape offense under Florida law.
• United States v. Hardesty
  645 F.2d 612· 8th Cir.· 1981-04-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove knowledge that goods were stolen, and the defendant's explanation for possessing the meat was not credible.
• United States v. Miklos Polesti
  489 F.2d 822· 7th Cir.· 1973-08-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the warrantless arrest was supported by probable cause and that the jury instructions regarding knowledge of stolen property and inference from possession were not erroneous.
• United States v. Folsom
  479 F.2d 1· 8th Cir.· 1973-06-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict and that the jury instructions were appropriate.
• United States v. Zemke
  457 F.2d 110· 7th Cir.· 1972-02-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendants' search and seizure claims were meritless and that the jury instruction regarding the inference of knowledge from possession of recently stolen property did not violate their Fifth Amendment rights.
• United States v. Liggins
  451 F.2d 577· 8th Cir.· 1971-11-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the jury was justified in inferring the defendant possessed the stolen check with knowledge it was stolen, based on the evidence presented.
• United States v. Bradley
  447 F.2d 657· 3d Cir.· 1971-08-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to convict the appellant as an aider and abettor and that any error in jury instructions regarding constructive possession was harmless.
• United States v. Ulysses Gibson
  444 F.2d 275· 5th Cir.· 1971-06-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the taking of fingerprints does not violate the Fifth Amendment and that a postal contract station is within the scope of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2115.
• United States v. Fisher
  440 F.2d 654· 4th Cir.· 1971-04-16 ·cited 8×
  The court summarily affirmed the conviction, finding no merit in the appellant's assignments of error.
• Garcia v. State
  227 So. 2d 209· Fla. 2d DCA· 1969-10-15 ·cited 8×
  The conviction was reversed because the circumstantial evidence was legally insufficient to sustain a guilty verdict; the state failed to prove that Garcia did not lawfully possess the key and did not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence as required by Florida law.
• Osborn v. United States
  391 F.2d 115· 10th Cir.· 1968-03-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the trial court's jury instructions were not plainly erroneous.
• Cogdell v. United States
  307 F.2d 176· D.C. Cir.· 1962-05-31 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the trial court did not err in its rulings or instructions to the jury.
• Wright v. United States
  189 F.2d 699· D.C. Cir.· 1951-05-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the jury instruction, while imperfectly worded, did not constitute reversible error because it allowed the jury to infer guilt from the unexplained possession of recently stolen property, rather than creating a mandatory presumption of law.
• In re Standard Jury Instructions IN Crim. Cases-Report NO. 2015-04
  190 So. 3d 614· Fla.· 2016-04-14 ·cited 7×
  The Florida Supreme Court authorized amendments to six existing criminal jury instructions and one new instruction, updating language regarding burden of persuasion, affirmative defenses, and statutory definitions to reflect current case law and legislative changes.
• Hutton v. State
  332 So. 2d 686· Fla. 1st DCA· 1976-05-28 ·cited 7×
  William Hutton was convicted of receiving stolen property after police recovered $400 worth of tools that he had possessed and given to another person as payment on a debt. The appellate court affirmed his conviction, holding that the state established prima facie evidence of the
• Mears v. State
  121 Fla. 239· Fla.· 1935-10-16 ·cited 7×
  Dave Mears was convicted of breaking and entering a building with intent to commit petit larceny, but the Florida Supreme Court reversed because the record contained no evidence connecting him to the breaking and entering. The court held that the state improperly relied on improp
• Vargas v. State
  34 So. 3d 44· Fla. 4th DCA· 2010-03-10 ·cited 6×
  Henry Vargas appeals his convictions for dealing in stolen property, operating a chop shop, racketeering, and conspiracy to commit racketeering. The court affirms, holding that sufficient evidence supported the defendant's knowledge of the illegal nature of the chop shop operatio
• M.D.S. v. State
  982 So. 2d 1282· Fla. 2d DCA· 2008-06-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove M.D.S. committed grand theft of a motor vehicle, and therefore his adjudication of delinquency and probation revocations must be reversed.
• Norberto Vasquez v. State
  763 So. 2d 1161· Fla. 4th DCA· 2000-01-19 ·cited 6×
  Norberto Vasquez appeals his convictions for first-degree murder, burglary with assault/battery, kidnapping, and robbery in the death of a 73-year-old woman during a home invasion. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirms all convictions and consecutive sentences, finding no t
• Donnie Wayne Phillips v. State
  591 So. 2d 987· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-12-13 ·cited 6×
  Phillips was convicted of burglary and grand theft after a search of his bedroom closet revealed stolen property from the Turner burglary. The Florida appellate court affirmed the admission of evidence linking Phillips to a collateral Maynard burglary, but reversed the conviction
• Z.S. v. State
  579 So. 2d 865· Fla. 2d DCA· 1991-05-22 ·cited 6×
  Z.S., a juvenile, was adjudicated delinquent for grand theft of a motor vehicle based on evidence he pumped gas into a stolen vehicle. The appellate court reversed, holding that merely pumping gas into a stolen vehicle is insufficient to establish the possession and intent requir
• D.G. v. State
  547 So. 2d 295· Fla. 3d DCA· 1989-08-08 ·cited 6×
  The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed a juvenile's adjudication of delinquency for grand theft, burglary of a conveyance, and malicious mischief, holding that unexplained possession of recently stolen property gives rise to a permissible inference of guilt for theft and b
• United States v. Neumann
  867 F.2d 1102· 8th Cir.· 1989-02-10 ·cited 6×
• Bunderick v. State
  528 So. 2d 1247· Fla. 1st DCA· 1988-07-19 ·cited 6×
  Johnny Daniel Bunderick appeals his convictions for grand theft and burglary, contending that the trial court erred in denying his motions for judgment of acquittal. The Florida District Court of Appeal reverses, holding that the circumstantial evidence was entirely consistent wi
• Ward v. A.L. Lockhart
  841 F.2d 844· 8th Cir.· 1988-03-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support the burglary conviction, violating due process, and that the case should be remanded for an evidentiary hearing on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and improper sentencing.
• United States v. Mitchell
  558 F.2d 1332· 8th Cir.· 1977-07-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the admission of testimony about a map found in the defendant's shoe was harmless error, and that the defendant's post-arrest silence after waiving Miranda rights was admissible when confronted with a false statement. The court also found sufficient evidence f
• United States v. Knight
  505 F.2d 112· 5th Cir.· 1974-12-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction and no reversible error in the trial proceedings.
• United States v. Garofalo
  496 F.2d 510· 8th Cir.· 1974-05-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendants' warrantless arrest was supported by probable cause and that the evidence was sufficient to support their convictions for transporting, selling stolen securities, and conspiracy.
• United States v. White
  463 F.2d 18· 9th Cir.· 1972-07-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the convictions for possession of drugs without a prescription and for receipt and concealment of stolen goods were supported by sufficient evidence and proper legal rulings.
• United States v. Boyd Henson Campbell
  453 F.2d 447· 10th Cir.· 1972-01-04 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for a continuance, admitting testimony placing the defendants near the scene of the crime, or in its jury instructions regarding possession of recently stolen property.
• United States v. Watson
  450 F.2d 290· 8th Cir.· 1971-11-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while the government may have erred in not properly instructing the jury on the limited use of a prior inconsistent statement, such error was harmless.
• United States v. Brocato
  437 F.2d 1157· 8th Cir.· 1971-02-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to show possession of stolen property and that the jury instruction allowing inference of guilty knowledge from possession of recently stolen property was proper.
• United States v. Jones
  434 F.2d 232· 5th Cir.· 1970-11-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the government's evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict of guilty knowledge and that the admission of certain documentary evidence was not reversible error.
• Kowalewski v. United States
  418 F.2d 118· 9th Cir.· 1969-10-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the inadvertent inclusion of a deleted phrase in a jury instruction, which suggested participation in the theft, was not reversible error given the overall context and other instructions.
• Dixon v. State
  227 So. 2d 740· Fla. 4th DCA· 1969-06-23 ·cited 6×
  Wilbur Dixon appealed his conviction for breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony and stealing property worth over $100. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed his conviction, holding that the trial court's jury instructions on alibi and possession of recently s
• O'Brien v. State
  206 So. 2d 217· Fla. 2d DCA· 1968-01-17 ·cited 6×
  Patrick O'Brien was convicted by jury verdict of buying stolen property under Florida Statute § 811.16. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the conviction due to two errors: the trial court abused its discretion in denying a new trial based on recanted testimony from th
• Odell Fish v. United States
  371 F.2d 438· 10th Cir.· 1967-01-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence presented was sufficient for the jury to find the appellant guilty of transporting a stolen motor vehicle in interstate commerce with knowledge that it was stolen.
• United States v. Vanover
  339 F.2d 987· 7th Cir.· 1965-01-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of guilt for conspiracy to transport stolen motor vehicles, and that no reversible error occurred during the trial.