State v. Graham, 39308
Decision Date | 22 July 1970 |
Docket Number | No. 39308,39308 |
Parties | The STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Joseph James GRAHAM, Respondent. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Harold Mendelow, Asst. Atty., Gen., for petitioner.
Fred C. Davant of Wicker, Smith, Pyszka, Blomqvist & Davant, Miami, for respondent.
By petition for certiorari, we have for review a decision of the Third District Court of Appeal (Graham v. State, 229 So.2d 616), which allegedly conflicts with prior decisions of this Court (Ard v. State, 108 So.2d 38; Tidwell v. State, 143 Fla. 397, 196 So. 837; Hayward v. State, 152 Fla. 608, 12 So.2d 458) on the same point of law. Fla.Const., art. V, § 4, F.S.A.
The respondent-defendant was convicted of the offense of unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously buying, receiving or aiding in the concealment of certain stolen property, which property the defendant well knew to have been stolen. The conviction was reversed by the District Court of Appeal, the Court saying:
(Emphasis supplied) Graham v. State, supra.
The only question raised by petitioner is whether the inference of guilt arising from evidence of the possession of recently stolen property is sufficient to sustain a conviction for receiving stolen goods. This question is discussed generally in 45 Am.Jur., Receiving Stolen Property, § 18, pp. 404--405, as follows:
It is essential to a conviction for receiving stolen property that the evidence shall show to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge that the property in question was stolen at the time he received it, or that the circumstances of the transaction were sufficiently suspicious to put a person of ordinary intelligence and caution upon inquiry. Stephenson v. State, 89 Fla. 351, 104 So. 600 (1925).
The Florida Court has adopted the rule that an inference of guilt may be drawn from the unexplained possession of recently stolen goods sufficient to support a verdict, and if an explanation be given, the jury must determine its reasonablenss and credibility. If the account raises a reasonable doubt of guilt, the defendant should be given the benefit of such doubt and an acquittal should follow. Fisk v. State, 138 Fla. 815, 190 So. 10 (1939).
Even in the face of this rule, the Florida Court has reversed convictions where there was a pacuity of facts showing conduct on the part of the accused that one naturally associates with the person who aids the thief by disposing of his ill-gotten wares. Such convictions were reversed even though the evidence showed defendant with possession of the stolen goods. See Franklin v. State, 66...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Russell v. State, 4735
...Ed., § 131, p. 277.10 An attempt to sell property at a price much less than its value is criminatory evidence of knowledge. State v. Graham, Fla.1970, 238 So.2d 618; State v. Lindsey, 1970, 81 N.M. 173, 464 P.2d 903, reh. den., cert. den. 1970, 398 U.S. 904, 90 S.Ct. 1692, 26 L.Ed.2d 62; St......
-
Jackson v. State
...the charge was receiving stolen goods and not larceny. See, e.g., Fisk v. State, 138 Fla. 815, 190 So. 10 (1939). In State v. Graham, 238 So.2d 618, 621 (Fla.1970), the supreme court clarified whether the unexplained possession of recently stolen property, and nothing more, was sufficient t......
-
Haugland v. State
...knowledge was properly inferable from the defendants' simultaneous possession of other items of stolen property. See State v. Graham, 238 So.2d 618, 621 (Fla.1970). We, accordingly, affirm the defendants' convictions for receiving stolen The defendants burglary convictions, however, must be......
-
Bertone v. State
...been stolen. In Jackson v. State, 736 So.2d 77, 83-84 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), we held that the circumstantial evidence rule of State v. Graham, 238 So.2d 618 (Fla.1970), applied to the inference of guilty knowledge created by section 812.022(2). In Graham, the supreme court held that the unexp......
-
Judicial Exploitation of Mens Rea Confusion, at Common Law and Under the Model Penal Code
...[307]. See id. at 197. [308]. See id. at 199. [309]. 736 So. 2d 77 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999). [310]. Id. at 84 (quoting State v. Graham, 238 So. 2d 618, 621 (Fla. 1970)). [311]. 736 So. 2d 85 (Fla Dist. Ct. App. 1999). [312]. See id. at 86-87. [313]. 965 P.2d 1165 (Cal. 1998). [314]. See i......
-
Dealing in stolen property, grand theft, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
...that the property had been stolen." If there is no other evidence of the burglary besides the statutory inference, see State v. Graham, 238 So. 2d 618 (Fla. (4) Graham, 238 So. 2d at 621, held: "Proof of mere naked possession of property recently stolen, not aided by other proof that the ac......