Receiving Stolen Property

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

• United States v. Dove
  629 F.2d 325· 4th Cir.· 1980-08-12 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge argues that the majority incorrectly applied the rule regarding recovery of stolen property, finding that the FBI never had actual physical possession of the stolen car.
• Evaret Clark v. State
  359 So. 2d 458· Fla. 3d DCA· 1978-01-31 ·cited 16×
  Evaret Clark appealed his convictions for cannabis possession and receiving stolen property, and an order revoking his probation. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the validity of the search warrant and the receiving stolen property conviction, but reversed the cannab
• Glantz v. State
  343 So. 2d 88· Fla. 3d DCA· 1977-03-08 ·cited 16×
  Charles Richard Glantz was convicted of receiving stolen property, but the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial due to the prosecutor's highly prejudicial comments and improper questioning that deprived him of a fair trial.
• State v. Patterson
  309 So. 2d 555· Fla. 2d DCA· 1975-03-26 ·cited 16×
  The State appeals an order suppressing evidence seized under a search warrant, arguing that an affidavit based solely on a juvenile informant's detailed statement, without corroboration, was sufficient to establish probable cause.
• Spurlock v. State
  281 So. 2d 586· Fla. 4th DCA· 1973-08-15 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a defective jury verdict, failing to specify the value of stolen goods or the defendant's knowledge, can be waived by failure to object below. However, a judgment must properly recite the defendant's knowledge.
• United States v. Porter
  386 F.2d 270· 6th Cir.· 1967-12-07 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial judge's extensive and argumentative comments on the evidence during jury instructions exceeded permissible limits, prejudicing the defendant and requiring reversal.
• Licht v. State
  148 So. 2d 295· Fla. 3d DCA· 1963-01-08 ·cited 16×
  The court held that admitting evidence of a prior, unrelated crime was prejudicial and reversible error.
• United States v. Cawley
  255 F.2d 338· 3d Cir.· 1958-05-23 ·cited 16×
  Recovered stolen goods lose their character as stolen when taken into possession by law enforcement, even if not the owner's direct agent.
• Lizzie Washington v. State
  51 Fla. 137· Fla.· 1906-01-01 ·cited 16×
  Lizzie Washington was convicted of larceny and receiving stolen goods under a single information containing two counts. She appealed, challenging the validity of the information and claiming the jury verdict was indefinite. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that two sep
• Anderson v. State
  38 Fla. 3· Fla.· 1896-06-01 ·cited 16×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a conviction for receiving stolen property because the information failed to explicitly state that the goods were stolen. The court clarified that while the receiver's knowledge of theft is an element, the information must directly allege the pr
• United States v. Alfarano
  706 F.2d 739· 6th Cir.· 1983-03-09 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the Speedy Trial Act did not apply to the pre-indictment investigation period and that the warrantless seizure of jewelry was supported by probable cause.
• Lackos v. State
  326 So. 2d 220· Fla. 2d DCA· 1976-02-04 ·cited 15×
  Lackos was convicted of buying, receiving, or aiding in the concealment of stolen property. The State amended its information during trial to correct the owner's corporate name from "Remington Electric Razors, Incorporated" to "Remington Electric Shavers, a Division of Sperry Ran
• McQUAID v. United States
  D.D.C.· 1952-08-07 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the trial court did not err in its jury instructions or in refusing to require the officers to identify their informer.
• Tess Ard v. State
  156 Fla. 313· Fla.· 1945-07-17 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction for receiving or concealing stolen property, as it did not prove the defendant's guilty knowledge.
• Mathis v. State
  134 Fla. 352· Fla.· 1938-10-15 ·cited 15×
  Floyd Mathis was convicted of receiving stolen goods and sentenced to three years in the state penitentiary. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but reversed and remanded because the trial court's judgment was defective for omitting a material element of the offense
• Afalia Perkins v. State
  126 Fla. 707· Fla.· 1936-12-28 ·cited 15×
  Afalia Perkins was convicted of possessing stolen property but the judgment failed to reflect the specific statutory offense charged. The Florida Supreme Court reversed and remanded because the judgment did not adjudicate guilt under the conditions required by the relevant statut
• United States v. Mazzilli
  848 F.2d 384· 2d Cir.· 1988-06-06 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court's intensive and prejudicial questioning of the defendant during his testimony denied him a fair trial.
• James Banks, Jr. v. McGOUGAN
  717 F.2d 186· 5th Cir.· 1983-10-14 ·cited 14×
  State courts are not constitutionally required to establish a factual basis for a guilty plea unless the defendant asserts innocence or the court is otherwise put on notice.
• Godwin v. United States
  687 F.2d 585· 2d Cir.· 1982-07-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court's failure to adequately inform the defendant of the nature of the charge and the lack of a sufficient factual basis for his plea, in light of his assertion of facts inconsistent with guilt, constituted substantial defects undermining the val
• Everette D. Alderman v. State
  356 So. 2d 928· Fla. 2d DCA· 1978-03-29 ·cited 14×
  Alderman appeals his misdemeanor conviction for receiving stolen property, challenging the admission of evidence from an impounded vehicle and the legality of his one-year probation sentence. The court upheld the warrantless seizure as supported by probable cause but remanded to
• United States v. Lightfoot
  506 F.2d 238· D.C. Cir.· 1974-10-18 ·cited 14×
  The Court held that the defendant's purchase of a car with proceeds from illegal activity, without more, did not constitute 'distributing the proceeds of unlawful activity' under the Travel Act.
• United States v. Tyler
  466 F.2d 920· 9th Cir.· 1972-08-22 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the conviction based on the concurrent sentence doctrine, despite the potential applicability of the Heflin-Milanovich rule.
• United States v. Pridgeon
  462 F.2d 1094· 5th Cir.· 1972-06-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a mistrial declared due to juror misconduct, even if the defendant's relatives were involved, does not violate the Fifth Amendment's double jeopardy clause if the mistrial was a manifest necessity.
• United States v. Carlucci
  288 F.2d 691· 3d Cir.· 1961-03-02 ·cited 14×
• Lopez v. Swope
  205 F.2d 8· 9th Cir.· 1953-06-08 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a prisoner's claim regarding the legality of a previously served sentence is irrelevant to the legality of his current detention under valid, consecutive sentences for escape and assault.
• Butler v. State
  35 Fla. 246· Fla.· 1895-01-01 ·cited 14×
  This case reviews a conviction for receiving stolen goods. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that the technical legality of the owner corporation's formation was not a material issue, and that the jury's verdict was sufficiently supported by the evidence.
• Zerangue v. TSP Newspapers, Inc.
  814 F.2d 1066· 5th Cir.· 1987-04-20 ·cited 13×
  The court held that former public officials must prove actual malice to recover for libel, and while summary judgment was appropriate for the first erroneous article, a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding actual malice for the second erroneous article.
• Carter v. State
  238 So. 2d 681· Fla. 1st DCA· 1970-09-01 ·cited 13×
  Milton Carter was convicted of receiving stolen cigarettes, but the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded because the state violated his Fourth Amendment rights by conducting a warrantless search of his store based on pretextual authority granted to a beverage ag
• Brown v. State
  111 So. 2d 296· Fla. 2d DCA· 1959-04-10 ·cited 13×
  Brown, a constable, was convicted of receiving stolen property (a boat trailer). On appeal, Brown challenges the indictment and the admission of his statements to officers. The court affirmed the conviction but remanded for a proper judgment that includes all elements of the offe
• Vaughn v. State
  147 Fla. 12· Fla.· 1941-05-02 ·cited 13×
  Leroy Vaughn was convicted of receiving stolen cigarettes valued at $20 and sentenced to 18 months in prison. The Florida Supreme Court reversed because the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury to fix the value of stolen property, which would have allowed Vaughn to
• York v. Tate
  858 F.2d 322· 6th Cir.· 1988-09-28 ·cited 12×
  The Sixth Circuit held that the Ohio common law rule requiring circumstantial evidence to be irreconcilable with any reasonable theory of innocence should not be applied by federal courts in habeas corpus proceedings reviewing state criminal convictions. The federal constitutiona
• Tuggle v. Seabold
  806 F.2d 87· 6th Cir.· 1986-11-24 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court correctly granted habeas corpus relief based on a due process violation, but remanded for a determination of whether the error was harmless.
• United States v. Tomasian
  784 F.2d 782· 7th Cir.· 1986-02-25 ·cited 12×
  The court held that evidence of prior crimes was admissible and the exclusion of a proffered expert witness was not an abuse of discretion. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the convictions.
• United States v. Hess
  691 F.2d 984· 11th Cir.· 1982-11-15 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict for conspiracy and substantive offenses, and that a dismantled tractor could still constitute a 'motor vehicle' under 18 U.S.C. § 2313.
• United States v. Eckmann
  656 F.2d 308· 8th Cir.· 1981-08-10 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court erred by refusing to give a requested limiting instruction under Federal Rule of Evidence 105 when admitting evidence of third-party transactions that was not relevant to the defendant.
• Coley v. State
  391 So. 2d 725· Fla. 1st DCA· 1980-12-19 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the statute limiting guilty verdicts to one offense for theft and dealing in stolen property does not apply to armed robbery and dealing in stolen property.
• Matrascia v. State
  349 So. 2d 735· Fla. 3d DCA· 1977-08-23 ·cited 12×
• Stephens v. State
  279 So. 2d 331· Fla. 2d DCA· 1973-06-08 ·cited 12×
  Jimmy Stephens appeals his conviction for armed robbery, challenging the trial court's refusal to give jury instructions on assault as a lesser included offense. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding that while an instruction on simple assault should have been give
• Lewis v. State
  269 So. 2d 692· Fla. 4th DCA· 1972-11-30 ·cited 12×
• United States v. Boatwright
  446 F.2d 913· 5th Cir.· 1971-08-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for conspiracy to transport a stolen vehicle in interstate commerce, but sufficient for other charges. The presence of law books in the jury room and the insanity defense did not warrant a new trial or acqu
• Biesendorfer v. State
  227 So. 2d 322· Fla. 4th DCA· 1969-10-29 ·cited 12×
  Donald Biesendorfer was convicted of receiving stolen property valued under $100. The Florida appellate court reversed and remanded because the judgment was defective, omitting material elements of the offense as charged in the information, and remanded for entry of a proper judg
• United States v. Gulley
  404 F.2d 534· 7th Cir.· 1968-12-06 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and that no prejudicial trial errors occurred.
• United States ex rel. William McARTHUR v. Rundle
  402 F.2d 701· 3d Cir.· 1968-10-15 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the admission of evidence obtained from a warrantless search, which lacked probable cause, violated the Fourth Amendment, requiring habeas corpus relief for the conviction based on that evidence.
• Naples v. Maxwell
  393 F.2d 615· 6th Cir.· 1968-04-19 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the affidavit for the search warrant was sufficient under Fourth Amendment standards, as interpreted by Aguilar v. State of Texas.
• Dove v. Peyton
  343 F.2d 210· 4th Cir.· 1965-03-05 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims lacked merit, and thus the petition for habeas corpus should be dismissed on its merits, not for failure to exhaust state remedies.
• Kozakoff v. State
  104 So. 2d 59· Fla. 2d DCA· 1958-06-20 ·cited 12×
  The court held that any error in failing to prove venue at the close of the State's case was harmless because the defendant later testified, admitting the transactions occurred in the relevant county. The court also held that the trial court did not err in limiting cross-examinat
• Guarino v. State
  67 So. 2d 650· Fla.· 1953-10-20 ·cited 12×
  Guarino was convicted of buying, receiving, and aiding in the concealment of stolen property (a refrigerator and washing machine). He appealed claiming a fatal variance between the charge and proof, and that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on accomplice test
• Winter v. United States
  13 F.2d 53· 8th Cir.· 1926-04-12 ·cited 12×
  The judgment of conviction for violating the National Motor Vehicle Theft Act is affirmed. The court found that the trial court's refusal of certain jury instructions regarding the defendant's knowledge of the stolen nature of the vehicle, the effect of a reasonable explanation b
• Idella Mims v. State
  42 Fla. 199· Fla.· 1900-01-01 ·cited 12×
  Idella Mims was convicted of receiving and concealing stolen property. She appealed, challenging the trial court's decision to excuse six jurors and issue a special venire, and arguing that certain jury instructions should have been given. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the c
• Perez v. State
  151 So. 2d 865· Fla. 3d DCA· 1963-04-16 ·cited 11×
  The appellate court affirmed a conviction for receiving and concealing stolen property, holding that a judgment entered on a guilty plea generally cannot be reviewed on appeal. The defendant appealed his conviction, which followed a guilty plea, but the court found no basis to di