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. Slaughter
  255 F.2d 770· 7th Cir.· 1958-05-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction for receiving stolen property, as knowledge of the theft could be inferred from the circumstances.
• Ward v. State
  123 Fla. 248· Fla.· 1936-03-12 ·cited 6×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a conviction for larceny of cattle, holding that although the trial court's jury charge on possession and recently stolen property was legally incorrect, the defendants waived their right to challenge it by failing to properly object at trial or
• Revels v. State
  68 Fla. 74· Fla.· 1914-10-16 ·cited 6×
  J. L. Revels was convicted of breaking and entering a building with intent to commit larceny. The Florida Supreme Court reversed because the trial judge's instructions improperly required the defendant's explanation for possessing recently stolen property to be both 'reasonable'
• Yudin v. State
  117 So. 3d 457· Fla. 2d DCA· 2013-07-17 ·cited 5×
  Mark Aaron Yudin was convicted of burglary and grand theft following a jury trial. On appeal, he challenged the trial court's denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal, arguing insufficient evidence of guilt. The Florida appellate court affirmed, holding that the evidence of
• C.T. v. State
  238 So. 3d 857· Fla. 3d DCA· 2017-11-29 ·cited 4×
  C.T., a juvenile, was found delinquent for grand theft of a motor vehicle based on the statutory inference of guilty knowledge under Florida Statutes § 812.022(2). The Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District, reversed because the State failed to present sufficient eviden
• Rivers v. State
  124 So. 3d 247· Fla. 2d DCA· 2013-08-23 ·cited 4×
  Patrick Rivers was convicted of multiple crimes including burglaries, thefts, and fleeing to elude police following a string of car burglaries. The appellate court reversed convictions for attempted burglary, burglaries and thefts related to stolen purses, and fleeing to elude; a
• Holcomb v. State
  946 So. 2d 633· Fla. 4th DCA· 2007-01-17 ·cited 4×
  Tommy Holcomb was convicted of burglary and grand theft after a GPS device stolen from a boat was found in the pickup truck he was driving. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed his conviction, holding that the trial court properly instructed the jury on the inference aris
• Ferguson v. State
  920 So. 2d 838· Fla. 4th DCA· 2006-02-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting testimony regarding a male companion's statement as an adopted admission and that any error was harmless.
• B.B.P. v. State
  841 So. 2d 687· Fla. 2d DCA· 2003-04-11 ·cited 4×
  B.B.P., a juvenile, was charged with dealing in stolen property but the trial court found him guilty of the nonexistent offense of 'possession of recently stolen property.' The appellate court reversed and remanded for dismissal because possession of stolen property does not exis
• Youngs v. State
  736 So. 2d 85· Fla. 4th DCA· 1999-06-09 ·cited 4×
  William Youngs was convicted of dealing in stolen roofing tools that he pawned the morning after they were stolen from a secured lot. The Fourth District affirmed, holding that the evidence was sufficient under Florida law because Youngs's immediate pawning of the property at an
• Ance Anderson v. State
  703 So. 2d 1105· Fla. 5th DCA· 1997-11-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the jury instruction on possession of recently stolen property was proper, but the restitution order for the victim's investigative costs was improper due to lack of proof of reasonableness.
• Turner v. State
  560 So. 2d 1342· Fla. 2d DCA· 1990-05-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to prove the defendant possessed the stolen property, thus reversing the conviction.
• United States v. Smith
  833 F.2d 213· 10th Cir.· 1987-11-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting tape-recorded conversations under the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule, as sufficient evidence supported the existence and continuation of the conspiracy.
• United States v. Thuna
  786 F.2d 437· 1st Cir.· 1986-03-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not err in redacting a statement, admitting rebuttal evidence, or giving jury instructions that allowed permissive inferences regarding the defendant's knowledge of stolen goods.
• P.L.C. v. State
  458 So. 2d 800· Fla. 3d DCA· 1984-10-23 ·cited 4×
  P.L.C., a juvenile, was adjudicated delinquent for burglary of a conveyance and theft based on his presence in a vehicle containing stolen purses. The Florida appellate court reversed, holding that mere presence in a car with stolen goods, without evidence of possession or knowle
• United States v. Ulysses Gibson
  536 F.2d 1110· 5th Cir.· 1976-08-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the jury instructions, when viewed as a whole, did not constitute plain error and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• Pickles v. State
  291 So. 2d 100· Fla. 2d DCA· 1974-03-06 ·cited 4×
  Steven Ray Pickles was convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence established the value of stolen property exceeded $100 and that felonious intent was proven despite the prosecutio
• Frazier v. State
  287 So. 2d 386· Fla. 1st DCA· 1973-11-29 ·cited 4×
  The admission of an inculpatory statement and representation by a single attorney did not constitute reversible error.
• United States v. Mustafa Esse
  468 F.2d 1070· 5th Cir.· 1972-11-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that any error in the trial judge's remark about the defendant testifying was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and other alleged errors were without merit.
• United States v. Tocki
  469 F.2d 655· 9th Cir.· 1972-10-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the admission of lock-picking tools and jury instructions were proper, and the denial of the motion to exclude prior convictions was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Barnes
  466 F.2d 1361· 9th Cir.· 1972-08-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the jury instruction allowing an inference of knowledge from possession of recently stolen property was permissible and did not violate due process or self-incrimination rights.
• Johnston v. State
  257 So. 2d 94· Fla. 3d DCA· 1972-02-01 ·cited 4×
• United States v. Kind
  433 F.2d 339· 4th Cir.· 1970-10-16 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no merit in the appellants' claims of judicial misconduct, improper jury instructions, or evidentiary errors.
• United States v. Wright
  431 F.2d 726· 8th Cir.· 1970-09-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the jury instruction regarding possession of a recently stolen vehicle is a permissible inference for interstate transportation.
• Allen v. United States
  257 F.2d 188· D.C. Cir.· 1958-04-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the evidence presented was insufficient to convict the appellant of aiding and abetting the unauthorized use of a motor vehicle.
• Giardano v. United States
  139 F.2d 198· 9th Cir.· 1943-10-15 ·cited 4×
• Grooms v. State
  85 Fla. 413· Fla.· 1923-04-11 ·cited 4×
  W. M. Grooms was convicted of larceny of an automobile after his prior conviction was reversed on appeal. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial court's jury charge adequately defined larceny by using the term 'felonious stealing,' which inheren
• Dejesus v. State
  225 So. 3d 285· Fla. 4th DCA· 2017-08-16 ·cited 3×
  Joseph DeJesus was convicted of grand theft and burglary based on circumstantial evidence, but the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the conviction, finding that the state's evidence failed to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence under Florida's heightened stan
• Gleason v. State
  188 So. 3d 35· Fla. 4th DCA· 2016-03-09 ·cited 3×
  Raymond Gleason appeals his convictions for burglary and dealing in stolen property. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that the prosecutor's closing argument improperly shifted the burden of proof to Gleason by commenting on his fa
• Midgette v. State
  152 So. 3d 767· Fla. 5th DCA· 2014-12-05 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the trial court erred in summarily denying claims that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to a jury instruction on possession of recently stolen property and for failing to call witnesses. These claims were facially sufficient and required further p
• Smith v. State
  15 So. 3d 849· Fla. 1st DCA· 2009-07-29 ·cited 3×
  Timothy Maurice Smith appeals his convictions for two counts of burglary and grand theft. The appellate court reverses his conviction for the January 31, 2007 burglary due to insufficient evidence, but affirms his remaining convictions and sentences.
• United States v. Ashley
  587 F.2d 841· 6th Cir.· 1978-11-30 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the jury instruction on the inference from possession of recently stolen property was plain error as applied to the defendant for the interstate transportation charge, but sufficient evidence supported the conviction for selling the stolen automobile.
• A.D.P. v. State
  223 So. 3d 428· Fla. 2d DCA· 2017-07-14 ·cited 2×
  The appellate court held that the trial court should have granted the motion for judgment of dismissal because the State failed to present sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that A.D.P. committed grand theft motor vehicle.
• Morales v. State
  35 So. 3d 122· Fla. 3d DCA· 2010-05-19 ·cited 2×
  Jorge Morales appeals convictions for grand theft auto and fleeing or eluding a police officer, arguing the evidence was insufficient and circumstantial without refuting his hypothesis of innocence. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirms, finding substantial competent evide
• Falando L. Wilkins v. State
  18 So. 3d 8· Fla. 4th DCA· 2009-08-05 ·cited 2×
  Falando Wilkins was convicted of dealing in stolen property and giving false verification of ownership to a pawnbroker after pawning stolen cleaning tools worth over $5,000 for $250. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed his convictions, finding sufficient evidence that he
• Waldron v. State
  979 So. 2d 449· Fla. 2d DCA· 2008-04-25 ·cited 2×
  Scott Waldron appealed his burglary and petit theft conviction, challenging the trial court's instruction to the jury on the inference arising from unexplained possession of recently stolen property. The Florida appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding insuf
• J.H. v. State
  868 So. 2d 1237· Fla. 4th DCA· 2004-03-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that an unrefuted, exculpatory, and reasonable explanation for possessing recently stolen property dispels the statutory inference of guilty knowledge, rendering the evidence legally insufficient for a conviction.
• In the Interest of F.W.B. v. State
  538 So. 2d 969· Fla. 1st DCA· 1989-02-22 ·cited 2×
  A juvenile was adjudicated delinquent for stealing a radio based on circumstantial evidence insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court reversed, finding no evidence that the appellant rather than three other delivery boys stole the radio, nor that he exclusi
• K.V. v. State
  516 So. 2d 1087· Fla. 2d DCA· 1987-12-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove the appellant committed burglary or grand theft of the moped because possession of the stolen property was not exclusive and not recently stolen.
• Thompson v. State
  480 So. 2d 179· Fla. 3d DCA· 1985-12-17 ·cited 2×
  Dennis Wayne Thompson was convicted of grand theft and dealing in stolen property after stolen property from a bar burglary was found in his apartment. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction for dealing in stolen property but reversed the conviction for gran
• United States v. Murphy
  703 F.2d 1335· 5th Cir.· 1983-04-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant's arguments regarding improper joinder, admission of unindicted criminal activity, and insufficiency of evidence lacked merit.
• Gilbert v. State
  410 So. 2d 609· Fla. 5th DCA· 1982-03-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that separate convictions and sentences for robbery and aggravated battery are permissible when the evidence supports distinct offenses, even if a weapon is involved in both.
• United States v. Sroka
  621 F.2d 1012· 1st Cir.· 1980-07-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the automobile sold by the defendant was the same automobile that was stolen.
• Gerardo v. State
  355 So. 2d 1221· Fla. 3d DCA· 1978-02-21 ·cited 2×
  Rene Gerardo, president of K & G Jewelry, Inc., was convicted of knowingly receiving and retaining stolen jewelry. He appealed arguing he was statutorily immunized from prosecution because he complied with a subpoena duces tecum to produce corporate records that yielded evidence
• Robinson v. State
  347 So. 2d 809· Fla. 1st DCA· 1977-06-30 ·cited 2×
  Three appellants were convicted of burglary and grand larceny after police found stolen checks from a photography studio in their vehicle shortly after the burglary occurred. The appellants appealed the trial court's denial of their motion for directed verdict, arguing insufficie
• United States v. Long
  538 F.2d 580· 4th Cir.· 1976-04-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the jury instruction allowing an inference of guilt from the unexplained possession of recently stolen property is proper, even when the property is money.
• United States v. Tucker
  486 F.2d 1040· 8th Cir.· 1973-10-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a jury instruction regarding the inference of knowledge from possession of recently stolen property does not violate the Fifth Amendment. The instruction is permissible under Supreme Court precedent.
• United States v. Townsend
  474 F.2d 209· 5th Cir.· 1973-02-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that possession of recently stolen property off the military base cannot give rise to an inference that the property was received or concealed on the base.
• United States v. Ruggere
  450 F.2d 302· 3d Cir.· 1971-11-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy conviction and that the jury charge regarding possession of recently stolen goods was not prejudicial.
• United States v. Ballard
  449 F.2d 782· 4th Cir.· 1971-10-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial judge's participation and jury instruction regarding the inference from possession of recently stolen property were not reversible error.