Metcalf v. State

Decision Date23 September 1929
Citation124 So. 427,98 Fla. 457
PartiesMETCALF v. STATE.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Error to Circuit Court, Santa Rosa County; Thomas F. West, Judge.

Clarence Metcalf was convicted of buying, receiving and aiding in the concealment of stolen property, and he brings error. Affirmed.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

SYLLABUS

Though one committing larceny cannot be adjudged guilty of receiving thing stolen, confederate of thief may be guilty, under Comp.Gen.Laws 1927, § 7239, of both receiving and concealing property which latter has stolen.

Fact that one charged with buying, receiving, or aiding in concealment of stolen property under Comp.Gen.Laws 1927, § 7239, was on outside of building waiting to receive goods after they were taken from house, does not necessarily make such receipt of goods part of larceny in fact.

COUNSEL

Philip D. Beall, of Pensacola, for plaintiff in error.

Fred H Davis, Atty. Gen., and Roy Campbell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

OPINION

ELLIS J.

The plaintiff in error was convicted of the offense denounced by section 7239, Comp.Gen.Laws 1927, providing the punishment for buying, receiving, or aiding in the concealment of stolen property.

The indictment was presented by the grand jury of Santa Rosa county, and charged the defendant, plaintiff in error here with breaking and entering a dwelling house with intent to steal money and property of the value of less than $50. The dwelling house was alleged to be in Santa Rosa county, and to be the property of Mrs. G.A. Duncan. The second count charged the offense of which the accused was found guilty. That count charged the receiving by the accused of certain described goods and chattels, alleged to be the property of Mrs. Duncan and of the value of $51.

Mrs Duncan, who was living at New Orleans, learned that her house at Town Point, in Santa Rosa county, had been entered, and her property stored therein had been taken away. She came to Town Point, discovered that her house had been entered, and the property stolen. She obtained a search warrant to search the house of the defendant at Pensacola, in Escambia county. The stolen property was found in the possession of the accused, who at the time, afterwards, and at the trial, gave confused accounts of how he acquired possession of the goods. In one statement he admitted that some one else broke into the house, but he assisted in taking the goods away. Such was his admission, according to the statement of one of the witnesses.

The position taken by counsel for the plaintiff in error is that the accused, not having been convicted on the first count charging a breaking and entering, was therefore acquitted of that charge, which meant a finding that he was not present aiding and abetting the entry and larceny; that the evidence against him on the question of his presence at the place and time of the commission of the offense of breaking and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Aaronson v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • June 8, 1949
    ...of the goods, may be convicted of receiving. Note 136, A.L.R. 1087, 1101; Smith v. State, 59 Ohio St. 350, 52 N.E. 826; Metcalf v. State, 98 Fla. 457, 124 So. 427; 2 Bishop on Criminal Law, § ...
  • Milanovich v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • March 20, 1961
    ...correct. As the court recognized, the question is one of statutory construction, not of common law distinctions. Compare Metcalf v. State, 98 Fla. 457, 124 So. 427; Smith v. State, 59 Ohio St. 350, 52 N.E. 826; Jenkins v. State, 62 Wis. 49, 21 N.W. 232; Regina v. Hilton, Bell C.C. 20, 169 E......
  • Ogle v. State, 6 Div. 163
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • May 27, 1980
    ...as to constitute the separate offense defined by the statute as receiving . . . .' Annot., 136 A.L.R. at 1093. "Compare Metcalf v. State, 98 Fla. 457, 124 So. 427 (1929), and Reg. v. Hilton, Bell C.C. 20, 169 Eng.Rep. 1150 (1858), with Snider v. State, 119 Tex.Cr.R. 635, 44 S.W.2d 997 (1931......
  • Cannon v. State, 73--272
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • February 6, 1974
    ...not the only one involved in the crime, and there was no evidence that appellant actually participated in the larceny. Metcalf v. State, 1929, 98 Fla. 457, 124 So. 427; Cf. Adams v. State, Supra; Ketelsen v. State, Fla.App.3rd, 1968, 211 So.2d 853; Thomas v. State, Fla.App.3rd, 1968, 216 So......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT