Edge v. State
| Decision Date | 17 December 1928 |
| Citation | 119 So. 332,96 Fla. 796 |
| Parties | EDGE v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Walton County; A. G. Campbell, Judge.
Frank Edge was convicted of breaking and entering with intent to steal, and he brings error.
Reversed.
Syllabus by the Court
Possession of property recently stolen from building may sustain conviction of entering building; possession of goods recently stolen creates no presumption of law that possessor stole them. The possession by a person of property which has been recently stolen may be sufficient, if unexplained, to warrant a conviction of such person of the crime of entering the building with intent to steal. There is no presumption of law, flowing from the unexplained possession of goods recently stolen, that the possessor stole them.
Inference of guilt may be drawn from unexplained possession of goods recently stolen, in connection with other circumstances. The unexplained possession of goods recently stolen is a circumstance from which an inference may be drawn of guilt when considered in connection with all the other circumstances of the case.
When person coming into possession of recently stolen property promptly reports fact and delivers to owner, inference of breaking and entering with intent to steal is not warranted. When a person comes into possession of recently stolen property, and promptly reports the fact and delivers it to the owner, such circumstance is not consistent with a purpose to steal such property, and is alone not sufficient from which to infer the breaking and entering of a building with intent to steal.
W. T. Bludworth, of De Funiak Springs, for plaintiff in error.
Fred H Davis, Atty. Gen., and Roy Campbell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Frank Edge was convicted of breaking and entering the Walton county courthouse with intent to steal the property of another of the value of less than $50.
The courthouse was broken into on the night of September 26 1927, and an old gun taken away. The next morning the accused reported the matter to the janitor, and said that during the night some one appeared on the courthouse grounds, and when he hailed him and ordered him to stop the person dropped the gun, and Edge recovered it and later carried it to his house. Not knowing what to do with it or where it came from, except that it had been in the possession of one who acted suspiciously when Edge called to him, he reported the matter to the janitor.
It is not clear why Edge was on the courthouse grounds that night, except that he had voluntarily offered to keep the fresh cement in a newly erected monument on the grounds wet during the night. It is advisable or customary to keep new cement work wet until the cement 'sets.'
The possession by a person of property which has been recently stolen...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Republic Bank of Chi. v. Vill. of Manhattan
... ... 858, 865 N.E.2d 221. 19 The words on a plat indicate the intention of the dedicators. Township of Jubilee v. State, 405 Ill.App.3d 489, 496, 344 Ill.Dec. 746, 937 N.E.2d 769 (2010). A plat of subdivision that identifies roads as (hereby dedicated) shows a ... ...
-
Haynes v. State
... ... strongly the one fact may follow from the other, they cannot ... be told that they must infer it, or that the law infers it ... for them ... Stokes ... v. State, 58 Miss. 677; Matthews v. State, 61 Miss ... 155; Harper v. State, 71 Miss. 202, 13 So. 882; Edge ... v. State, 119 So. 332 ... W. D ... Conn, Jr., Assistant Attorney-General, for the state ... It is ... strenuously insisted by appellant here that the building ... which was burglarized had lost its character of a dwelling ... house at the time of the alleged ... ...
-
People v. Turner
...to the facts of this case. Considerable research located only one case with facts similar to those of this case. In Edge v. State (1928), 96 Fla. 796, 119 So. 332, a county courthouse was broken into and an old gun taken away. The next morning the defendant reported the matter to the janito......
-
Aronovitz v. Stein Properties
... ... Section 865.09(3), Fla.Stat., F.S.A., provides that it shall be unlawful for any partnership to engage in business in this state under a fictitious name unless such name is properly registered with the clerk of the circuit court of the county in which its principal place of ... ...