Bellamy v. State

Decision Date30 April 1895
Citation35 Fla. 242,17 So. 560
PartiesBELLAMY v. STATE.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Error to circuit court, Jackson county; W. D. Barnes, Judge.

J. G Bellamy, having been convicted of larceny, brings error. Reversed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

1. An instruction that requires the explanation given by a party found in possession of goods recently stolen, as to how he acquired such possession, to be satisfactory as well as reasonable, before such explanation shall shift the burden on the state of proving the falsity thereof, is erroneous. The correct rule is, that where a party is found in possession of goods recently stolen, and directly gives a reasonable and credible account of how he came into such possession, or such an account as will raise a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury, who are the sole judges of its reasonableness probability, and credibility, then it becomes the duty of the state to prove that such account is false; otherwise there should be an acquittal.

2. The possession of goods recently stolen does not raise a presumption, as matter of law, of the guilt of the possessor but the presumption arising therefrom is purely a matter of fact to be passed upon by the jury, and of which they are the sole judges; but it is nevertheless true that the presumption of guilt, as a question or inference of fact, is permitted by the law to be drawn by the jury from the unexplained possession of recently stolen goods.

COUNSEL W. P. Hines, for plaintiff in error.

William B. Lamar, Atty. Gen., for the State.

OPINION

TAYLOR, J.

The plaintiff in error was tried and convicted at the fall term 1894, of the circuit court of Jackson county, upon an indictment presented at the spring term, 1893, of said court of the crime of larceny of a hog, the property of one Edenfield, and was sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for one year. From this judgment he seeks relief by writ of error.

The first and second assignments of error are the giving of the following instructions: 'If goods have been taken without the consent of the owner, and shortly afterwards are found in the possession of another, it is prima facie evidence that he is the taker, and it devolves upon him to explain the possession of the property; and, if the explanation given by him is a reasonable and a satisfactory one, it then devolves upon the prosecution to rebut it by direct evidence, or by evidence arising out of the facts given on the trial.' 'If the defendant came into the possession of the property with an honest intent, he cannot be found guilty of larceny. If his explanation of the possession is not reasonable or satisfactory, he is not relieved from whatever presumption of guilt that arises from the possession.'

The giving of these charges was error. In them the jury are instructed that the explanation of a person found in possession of goods recently stolen as to how he acquired such possession must be satisfactory in order to relieve himself of the evidentiary presumption of guilt arising out of such possession. This is not the law. The explanation given by the possessor of stolen goods may fall far short of satisfying the jury, and yet it may be sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt in their minds; and, if it does raise such doubt, then it is sufficient to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • State v. Bogris
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • December 19, 1914
    ... ... much depends on the nature of the property stolen and the ... circumstances of each particular case. ( Smith v ... State, 58 Ind. 340; State v. Hodge, 50 N.H ... 510; State v. Jennett, 88 N.C. 665; Stover v ... People, 56 N.Y. 315; Bellamy v. State, 35 Fla ... 242, 17 So. 560; Ingalls v. State, 48 Wis. 647, 4 ... N.W. 785; Jones v. State, 26 Miss. 247; State v ... Pomeroy, 30 Ore. 16, 46 P. 797; State v ... Walker, 41 Iowa 217; People v. Fagan, 66 Cal ... 534, 6 P. 394; Considine v. United States, 112 F. 342, 50 ... ...
  • Jackson v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • June 9, 1999
    ...of each particular case." Id. McDonald is in accord with the law set forth in three cases from the 19th century: Bellamy v. State, 35 Fla. 242, 17 So. 560 (1895), Leslie v. State, 35 Fla. 171, 17 So. 555, 556 (1895), and Young v. State, 24 Fla. 147, 3 So. 881 (1888). Florida cases following......
  • Mcdonald v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • October 19, 1908
    ...does not put in any evidence directly to prove the falsity of the account given. Leslie v. State, 35 Fla. 171, 17 So. 555; Bellamy v. State, 35 Fla. 242, 17 So. 560; Williams v. State, 40 Fla. 480, 25 So. 143, 74 St. Rep. 154. The guilt of the accused does not follow as a presumption of law......
  • Bass v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • October 19, 1909
    ... ... Among other ... defects which might be pointed out, there is a clear ... distinction between the expressions 'unexplained recent ... possession of stolen property' and 'unexplained ... possession of recently stolen property.' See Leslie ... v. State, 35 Fla. 171, 17 So. 555; Bellamy v ... State, 35 Fla. 242, 17 So. 560; Williams [58 ... Fla. 6] v. State, 40 Fla. 480, 25 So. 143, 74 Am ... St. Rep. 154; Long v. State, 42 Fla. 509, 28 So ... 775; McDonald v. State, 56 Fla. 74, 47 So. 485. In ... these cases will be found a full discussion of the legal ... principles ... ...
  • 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