Collier v. State
| Decision Date | 14 January 1908 |
| Citation | 45 So. 752,55 Fla. 7 |
| Parties | COLLIER v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Criminal Court of Record, Volusia County; Isaac A Stewart, Judge.
John Collier was convicted of breaking into a warehouse with intent to steal, and brings error. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
When a building has been entered and property stolen therefrom, and soon thereafter the property is found in the possession of the person charged with entering the building with intent to steal, such possession, unexplained, may be sufficient to warrant a conviction of the crime of entering the building with intent to steal.
The guilt of the accused does not follow as a presumption of law from the unexplained possession of the 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 in each particular case.
When a party who is charged with breaking and entering a building with intent to steal 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, then it becomes the duty of the state to prove that such account is untrue; otherwise, he should be acquitted. The account given must not only be reasonable, but it must be credible or sufficiently so to raise a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury, who are the judges of its reasonableness and probability, as well as of its credibility. The account given may be reasonable and highly plausible, and yet the jury may not believe a word of it to be true. In the latter case they would have the right to convict upon proof that the building was broken and entered and the evidence furnished by the possession of the stolen goods, even though the state had not put in any proof directly to prove the falsity of the account given.
The finding upon a person of property of such peculiar nature and condition that it can be easily and positively identified as that which was shortly before stolen from a building by breaking and entering may be by the jury taken as evidence of guilt of the breaking and entering the building with intent to steal; and, in the absence of a reasonable and credible account of the possession of the property given by the defendant, the jury may find a verdict of guilty of breaking and entering the building with intent to steal.
COUNSEL Landis & Fish, for plaintiff in error.
W. H Ellis, Atty. Gen., for the State.
On this writ of error to a judgment of the criminal court of record for Volusia county convicting and sentencing the plaintiff in error to one year in the state penitentiary upon a charge of entering without breaking a warehouse, the property of C. A Miller, with intent to steal, it is contended that the verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence.
Some of the testimony offered by the state was not properly admissible; but it was not objected to, and there was no motion to strike it. It appears from the testimony that was admissible that about July 2, 1907, a warehouse belonging to C. A. Miller was entered, and a lead pencil sharpened in a peculiar way, with a cartridge on the end for a cap, and a fountain pen taken therefrom; that the next day the lead pencil was found in the pocket of Collier and positively identified, and the fountain pen was found in the shoe of James Day, who was with Collier. The defendant testified that he had been in Quincy, Fla., in June, 1907, and denied entering the building, and testified: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Palmer v. State
...to explain satisfactorily how he came honestly by the stolen goods. See Leslie v. State, 35 Fla. 171, 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, 1......
-
Miller v. State
...states a correct proposition of law, see Revels v. State, 68 Fla. 74, 66 So. 422; McDonald v. State, 56 Fla. 74, 47 So. 485; Collier v. State, 55 Fla. 7, 45 So. 752. charge refused and the charge given are on the same subject, and the charge given covers the precise point covered by the cha......
-
Smith v. State
...of the jury, then it becomes the duty of the State to prove that such account is untrue; otherwise he should be acquitted.' Collier v. State, 55 Fla. 7, 45 So. 752. 'It is not requisite that the accused should prove that his possession was honest. It is sufficient to acquit him if he gives ......
-
Mcdonald v. State
...the verdict will in general not be disturbed by the appellate court on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence. Collier v. State, 55 Fla. 7, 45 So. 752; McCaskill v. State, 55 Fla. 117, 45 So. Strobhar v. State, 55 Fla. 167, 47 So. 4. A verdict will not be set aside by an appellate cour......