Bargesser v. State
| Decision Date | 01 March 1928 |
| Parties | BARGESSER v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Criminal Court of Record, Hillsborough County; W. Raleigh Petteway, Judge.
T. E Bargesser was convicted of the larceny of an automobile, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
Verdict of guilty of larceny may be found from unexplained possession of goods recently stolen. A verdict of guilty of larceny may be found from the unexplained possession of goods recently stolen.
Jury may convict of larceny on evidence of possession of goods recently stolen, regardless of plausible explanation not directly proved false. In a prosecution for larceny, where the state relies for a conviction upon the unexplained possession by the accused of goods recently stolen, and the accused undertakes to explain his possession thereof, such explanation may appear to be reasonable and highly plausible but, if the jury does not believe it, they have the right to convict upon the evidence furnished by the possession of the stolen goods alone, even though the state does not produce any evidence to directly prove the falsity of the explanation offered by the defendant.
Larceny may be proved by circumstantial evidence of such nature that jury could legally infer guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Larceny may be proven by circumstantial evidence of such a nature and probative force that the jury could legally infer guilt therefrom beyond a reasonable doubt.
Conviction for larceny, based on sufficient evidence, will not ordinarily be disturbed for insufficiency of evidence, in absence of indication that jury was influenced by considerations outside evidence. In a prosecution for larceny, where the evidence is legally sufficient to support the verdict of guilty, and there is nothing to indicate that the jury was influenced by considerations outside the evidence, the verdict will not ordinarily be disturbed by this court on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence.
W. K. Zewadski, Jr., and Wm. C. Pierce, both of Tampa, for plaintiff in error.
Fred H Davis, Atty. Gen., and H. E. Carter, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Plaintiff in error, who will hereinafter be referred to as the defendant, was convicted of the larceny of one Ford coupé, the property of A. Sillin.
On writ of error to review the judgment of conviction, the sole contention of the defendant is that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict.
To sustain the judgment of conviction, the state relies upon the rule heretofore announced by this court in McDonald v State, 56 Fla. 74, 47 So. 485, that a verdict of guilty of larceny may be found from the unexplained possession of goods recently stolen. The guilt of the accused does not follow as a presumption of law from the unexplained possession of property recently stolen, but the presumption of guilt in such a case is one that the jury may infer as a matter of fact, of which they are the sole judges, to be considered in connection with all the other circumstances of each particular case. In cases where the defendant undertakes to sufficiently explain his possession of the property, such explanation may appear to be reasonable and highly plausible, but, if the jury does not believe it, they have the right to convict upon the evidence furnished by the possession of the stolen goods alone, even though the state does not put in any evidence to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cross v. State
...evidence of such a nature and probative force that the jury could legally infer guilt therefrom beyond a reasonable doubt. Bargesser v. State (Fla.) 116 So. 11; v. State, 56 Fla. 74, 47 So. 485. It was the jury's province to determine the truth of the facts testified to and the credibility ......
-
Palmer v. State
...17 So. 555 (1895); Collier v. State, 55 Fla. 7, 45 So. 752 (1908); McDonald v. State, 56 Fla. 74, 47 So. 485 (1908); Bargesser v. State, 95 Fla. 401, 116 So. 11 (1928); Ferguson v. State, 157 Fla. 324, 25 So.2d 799 (1946). If his explanation was 'reasonable and credible,' the State was said......
-
Jackson v. State
...of a defendant's explanation of his possession. See, e.g., Ferguson v. State, 157 Fla. 324, 25 So.2d 799 (1946); Bargesser v. State, 95 Fla. 401, 116 So. 11 (1928); Tucker v. State, 86 Fla. 36, 96 So. 10 (1923); Kirkland v. State, 82 Fla. 118, 89 So. 356 (1921). In addition to evaluating th......
-
Beard v. State
... ... The criminal act was the failure to prosecute someone else. Thus, as was said by the Florida court fifty years ago in Bargesser v. State, 95 Fla. 401, 116 So. 12 (1928), "One cannot receive goods from himself. A theft must be perfected before the offense of receiving stolen property ... can be perpetrated, and the receiver of the stolen goods must be a person other than the principal in the larceny." 1 ... ...