Possession Of Recently Stolen Property

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

• Neal v. United States
  438 F.2d 301· 10th Cir.· 1970-12-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the jury's conviction under the Dyer Act and that the appellant's court-appointed counsel was not ineffective.
• United States v. Maynard John Verdoorn
  433 F.2d 1370· 8th Cir.· 1970-11-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a jury instruction allowing an inference of knowledge that property was stolen from recent possession does not unconstitutionally shift the burden of proof.
• United States v. Irving
  437 F.2d 649· D.C. Cir.· 1970-10-09 ·cited 2×
  An erroneous jury instruction, particularly when given as the final word to a deliberating jury and in response to specific questions, is not cured by prior correct instructions and can constitute reversible error.
• United States v. Valire Leon Mathews
  429 F.2d 497· 9th Cir.· 1970-06-25 ·cited 2×
  A confession is sufficiently corroborated if there is independent evidence of the corpus delicti and the defendant's connection to it, even if circumstantial.
• Williams v. State
  226 So. 2d 348· Fla. 1st DCA· 1969-09-11 ·cited 2×
  A belated objection to a jury instruction, even if the ground for objection is legally sound, cannot be raised on appeal if the objection was not made before the jury retired to deliberate, as required by statute.
• Gelis v. State
  215 So. 2d 86· Fla. 2d DCA· 1968-10-30 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the denial of relief for Spivey but reversed and remanded for Gelis, finding a Bruton error that applied retroactively.
• Collier v. State
  55 Fla. 11· Fla.· 1908-01-01 ·cited 2×
  John Collier was convicted of entering a railroad car without breaking it with intent to steal, and sentenced to one year imprisonment. On appeal, he challenged the sufficiency of evidence, but the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding the evidence adequate to su
• Garcia v. State
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2023-04-26 ·cited 1×
  This case involves John Garcia's appeal of his convictions for second-degree murder and second-degree grand theft. The appellate court, reconsidering the case in light of a new Supreme Court precedent, found insufficient evidence to support both convictions. The court reduced the
• Dydek v. State
  349 So. 3d 521· Fla. 2d DCA· 2022-10-26 ·cited 1×
  The appellate court reversed a conviction for drug possession, holding that the evidence was obtained through an unlawful search. The court found the police encounter with the defendant was not consensual and lacked reasonable suspicion, thus the motion to suppress should have be
• Joseph v. State
  275 So. 3d 1266· Fla. 5th DCA· 2019-07-25 ·cited 1×
  Where a conviction rests wholly on circumstantial evidence, the evidence must be inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The State cannot invoke the statutory inference of guilt from possession of recently stolen property unless it proves exclusive possession, w
• A.F. v. State
  44 Fla. L. Weekly D1023· Fla. 3d DCA· 2019-07-17 ·cited 1×
  This case involves a juvenile, A.F., who appealed an adjudication of delinquency for trafficking in stolen property. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no error in the adjudication.
• Javoris Denard Phillips v. State
  238 So. 3d 845· Fla. 4th DCA· 2018-02-28 ·cited 1×
  Appellant was convicted of burglary and grand theft based primarily on possession of stolen property found in a rental car he rented. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, though a concurring judge noted potential ineffective assistance of counsel claims regarding both tr
• Marcy E. Bender v. State
  890 So. 2d 538· Fla. 4th DCA· 2005-01-12 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the unexplained possession of recently stolen property is sufficient to support a conviction for burglary when the burglary occurred as an adjunct to the theft.
• State v. Carpenter
  222 So. 2d 194· Fla.· 1969-04-23 ·cited 1×
  The Florida Supreme Court quashed a District Court of Appeal decision that had reversed a theft conviction based on a jury instruction about inferences from possession of recently stolen property. The Court held that the traditional common-law evidentiary rule permitting such an
• Arnold v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (Pinellas County)
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-03-28
  The court denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus, finding no basis for relief under AEDPA standards.
• A.O. v. State
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2023-05-10
• A.O. v. State
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2023-05-10
  Sufficient evidence supported the juvenile's conviction, and any hearsay error in the trial court's judgment was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Moore v. State
  Fla. 2d DCA· 2020-05-27
  The trial court committed fundamental error by instructing the jury on the inference of knowledge arising from possession of recently stolen property where the disputed issue was whether the property was stolen at all, rather than who stole it, because the instruction negated the
• J. S. v. State
  Fla. 2d DCA· 2019-07-31
  A trial court must conduct a full Richardson hearing when the State fails to disclose a material change in a witness's prior statement that would transform the witness from a non-percipient witness to an eyewitness regarding elements of the crime. The error in refusing to hold su
• Dobbins v. State
  275 So. 3d 1260· Fla. 2d DCA· 2019-07-24
  Timothy Dobbins was convicted of burglary based on circumstantial evidence including DNA found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene and tools stolen from the school found in a truck he occupied. The appellate court reversed the conviction, holding that the State failed to prese
• J. A. H. v. State
  Fla. 2d DCA· 2019-06-26
  A defendant who is merely a passenger in a stolen vehicle, even with knowledge that it was stolen, cannot be convicted of grand theft of the vehicle absent evidence of dominion and control. Similarly, presence in a vehicle containing stolen items with no evidence of control over
• Quinones v. State
  271 So. 3d 1165· Fla. 3d DCA· 2019-04-24
  Proof of recent possession of stolen property, combined with the personalized markings on the items, their joint possession, temporal proximity to the theft, and the defendant's attempt to dispose of them through a pawnshop, provided sufficient evidence to support conviction and
• Javoris Denard Phillips v. State
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2018-03-07
  Appellant was convicted of burglary and grand theft based primarily on evidence that a stolen computer was found in a rental car rented by him. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, though one judge concurred specially to note potential ineffective assistance of counsel c
• Geza Horvath v. State
  217 So. 3d 1045· Fla. 4th DCA· 2017-05-03
  Horvath was convicted of dealing in stolen property and falsely verifying ownership to a pawnbroker after pawning borrowed equipment. The appellate court reversed the dealing in stolen property convictions because the trial court erroneously instructed the jury on an inference of
• S.M. v. State
  150 So. 3d 1179· Fla. 4th DCA· 2014-11-12
  A juvenile was adjudicated delinquent for second-degree petit theft of a bicycle after being found in possession of recently stolen property. The court affirmed, finding sufficient evidence that the appellant knew or should have known the bicycle was stolen, despite his trial tes
• Schultz v. State
  109 So. 3d 320· Fla. 2d DCA· 2013-03-20
  The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a burglary and grand theft conviction, holding that the circumstantial evidence presented was insufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The court found that the defendant's proximity to the crime scene and the
• Norris Riggins v. State
  898 So. 2d 1025· Fla. 4th DCA· 2005-03-09
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for judgment of acquittal or in giving the standard jury instruction on possession of recently stolen property.
• Edgar D. Sales v. State
  652 So. 2d 513· Fla. 4th DCA· 1995-04-05
• United States v. Collazo-Martinez
  880 F.2d 1496· 1st Cir.· 1989-08-03
  The court held that the exclusion of a computer printout was harmless error and that the jury instructions regarding the inference of knowledge from possession of recently stolen property were proper.
• Watts v. State
  523 So. 2d 687· Fla. 4th DCA· 1988-03-30
• Broesch v. Gagnon
  817 F.2d 37· 7th Cir.· 1987-04-20
  The court held that the jury instruction created a permissive inference, not a mandatory presumption, and was therefore not constitutionally offensive.
• Nelson v. Solem
  795 F.2d 636· 8th Cir.· 1986-06-26
  The court affirmed the denial of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, finding no error in the jury instructions.
• State v. Carroll
  404 So. 2d 844· Fla. 5th DCA· 1981-10-14
  Florida appeals the dismissal of charges against Billy Carroll for dealing in stolen property. The court reverses the dismissal, holding that once the state proves the item was stolen and the defendant was in possession of it, a statutory presumption of knowledge arises, making k
• Hudson v. State
  383 So. 2d 954· Fla. 5th DCA· 1980-05-21
  The court held that the inference of guilt from unexplained possession of recently stolen goods arises from the fact of possession itself, not from the defendant's failure to explain it.
• United States v. Jones
  559 F.2d 960· 5th Cir.· 1977-09-21
  The court held that evidence of other misconduct was admissible to establish identity and rebut the alibi defense, and that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• Jenkins v. State
  329 So. 2d 409· Fla. 4th DCA· 1976-04-02
• Laroque v. State
  292 So. 2d 398· Fla. 3d DCA· 1974-04-02
  Raymond Laroque was convicted of receiving stolen property, but the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed because the state failed to prove the essential element of guilty knowledge. The court held that mere possession of recently stolen property, without additional incrimina
• Charles v. Louie L. Wainwright
  478 F.2d 754· 5th Cir.· 1973-05-29
  The court held that the jury instructions on possession of recently stolen property were constitutional and that sufficient evidence supported the conviction.
• United States v. Floyd
  462 F.2d 579· 9th Cir.· 1972-07-03
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict of guilt for transporting a stolen motor vehicle in interstate commerce.
• United States v. Frankie Robertson (Webb)
  460 F.2d 1250· 5th Cir.· 1972-05-23
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict and that the trial court did not err in admitting certain evidence or in its jury instructions.
• Robinson v. State
  257 So. 2d 300· Fla. 3d DCA· 1972-02-01
  The court held that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish a prima facie case for knowingly receiving stolen property.
• United States v. Timbrook
  448 F.2d 1314· 5th Cir.· 1971-10-01
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying motions for acquittal or in its jury instructions.
• United States v. Dalzell
  442 F.2d 1000· 10th Cir.· 1971-06-02
  The court held that the jury instruction regarding permissible inference from possession of a recently stolen vehicle was proper, and the denial of a mistrial for hearsay testimony was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Kinney
  437 F.2d 407· 9th Cir.· 1970-12-21
  The court held that even if incriminating statements were improperly admitted, the evidence of flight, combined with possession of recently stolen goods, was sufficient to support the delinquency finding, rendering any error harmless.
• United States v. Jones
  432 F.2d 773· 5th Cir.· 1970-09-18
  The court held that the FBI agent's examination of a lawfully impounded vehicle to record identification numbers did not constitute a Fourth Amendment search requiring a warrant.
• United States v. Smiley
  423 F.2d 930· 8th Cir.· 1970-04-08
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's guilty verdicts and that the trial judge's comment on the evidence was permissible.
• Surber v. State
  226 So. 2d 829· Fla. 2d DCA· 1969-09-24
  Raymond Surber was convicted of breaking and entering a TV store with intent to commit theft after a jury trial. On appeal, Surber challenged the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence, but the court affirmed, finding the evidence amply supported the guilty verdict.
• Slayden v. United States
  414 F.2d 390· 5th Cir.· 1969-08-21
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the jury instructions adequately conveyed the necessary elements of the crime, including knowledge of forgery.
• Payne v. United States
  409 F.2d 1350· 5th Cir.· 1969-04-07
  The court held that the prosecutor's single, erroneous statement during summation was not reversible error, and the conviction for interstate transportation of a stolen vehicle should be affirmed.
• Carson v. State
  205 So. 2d 340· Fla. 3d DCA· 1967-12-27
  The court held that the State failed to prove a prima facie case for larceny because it did not identify the motorcycle found in the appellant's possession as the stolen motorcycle.