Cone v. State
Decision Date | 08 December 1953 |
Citation | 69 So.2d 175 |
Parties | CONE v. STATE. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
J. C. Adkins, J. C. Adkins, Jr., and Phillip Barton, Gainesville, for appellant.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and Bart L. Cohen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant was tried and convicted of larceny of an automobile. He was sentenced to serve five years in the state penitentiary and prosecuted this appeal from that judgment.
The material question urged for our consideration challenges the following instruction to the jury:
Appellant contends that this instruction is not applicable to the case at bar because the record shows that it was approximately nine months from the date the automobile disappeared from the home of the owner to the date it was found at the home of defendant, and being so, the presumption that larceny or possession after the larceny was 'recent' is not applicable. Williams v. State, 40 Fla. 480, 25 So. 143, is relied on to support this contention.
It is fact that many courts hold that possession after larceny must be 'recent' to impute guilt but what constitutes 'recent' is by no means fixed time. As in many other instances it is determined by the facts of the particular case. An examination of cases in other jurisdictions supports this premise. In Van Gorder v. United States, 8 Cir., 21 F.2d 939, the Court held that possession 87 days after theft was insufficient to raise the presumption of guilt. In State v. Miller, 45 Minn. 251, 48 N.W. 401, the Court upheld refusal of the lower court to charge the jury that possession eleven months after theft would support an inference of guilt. In State v. Bartholomew, 116 Kan. 590, 227 P. 366, the Court held that possession of an automobile two weeks after it was stolen gave rise to an inference of guilt. In McHenry v. State, 52 Okl.Cr. 20, 2 P.2d 597, the Court held that possession eight months after theft, defendant being in possession of the goods, was not too remote to presume guilt. In State v. McRae, 120 N.C. 608, 27 S.E. 78, the unexplained possession of a 20 dollar gold piece, two days after theft, was not sufficient to justify a legal presumption of guilt. In State v. Jones, 227 N.C. 47, 40 S.E.2d 458, possession 20 days after theft would not support a presumption of guilt. In State v. Cameron, 223 N.C. 449, 27 S.E.2d 81, it was held that possession 8 months after theft did not give rise to a presumption of guilt. In Preston v. State, 147 Tex.Cr.R. 79, 178 S.W.2d 522, it was held that possession 15 months after theft would not support a presumption of guilt. In McGowen...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Palmer v. State
...possession of the stolen goods, Solomon v. State, 145 So.2d 492 (Fla.App.2d, 1962), cert. den. Fla., 155 So.2d 151 (1963), Cone v. State, 69 So.2d 175 (Fla.1954), nor was his possession of the car and its contents, jointly with his passengers, accompanied by personal knowledge of the stolen......
-
Haynes v. State
...in point of time as to be without causal connection or logical relation to the main event. * * *' In like vein, Terrell, J., in Cone v. State, Fla., 69 So.2d 175, cited many cases of varying times and kinds of property. In that case the accused was found with a car about nine months after i......
-
Ard v. State
...the rule. Of course, the meaning of the word 'recent' is variable according to the circumstances, as was said by this court in Cone v. State, Fla., 69 So.2d 175, but the fact remains that the theft is the important factor as distinguished from the trial itself. Coupled with this is the peri......
-
People v. Giffis
...possession of the stolen property with other corroborative evidence is sufficient to convict a person of burglary. (See Cone v. State, Fla., 69 So.2d 175, 176-177; State v. Oliver, 355 Mo. 173, 195 S.W.2d 484, 485; People v. Pride, 16 Ill.2d 82, 156 N.W.2d 551, 557; Butz v. State, 221 Md. 6......