KENNETH EDWARDS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Kenneth Edwards appealed a trial court order upholding the constitutionality of Florida theft statutes that create inferences of knowledge when a defendant possesses recently stolen property. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the statutory inference does not violate due process or self-incrimination rights.
The Court held that section 812.022(2) does not violate due process or self-incrimination rights because there is a rational connection between the proven fact (possession of stolen goods) and the presumed fact (knowledge that goods were stolen), and the statute does not compel a defendant to testify.
[1] Proof of possession of property recently stolen, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that the person in possession knew or should have known that…
[2] The inference arising from the unexplained possession of recently stolen property does not violate due process rights when there is a rational connection between the fact…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Proof of possession of property recently stolen, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that the person in possession of the property knew or should have known that the property had been stolen.”
The statutory provision at issue, setting forth the inference challenged by Edwards as unconstitutional.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEdwards was found in possession of recently stolen property. He challenged the constitutionality of sections 812.019 and 812.022(2) of the Florida Sta…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Right Against Self-Incrimination cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
By this appeal, Kenneth Edwards seeks review of a trial court order finding sections 812.019 and 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (1977), to be constitutional. We affirm the order of the trial court.
Section 812.022(2) states:
Proof of possession of property recently stolen, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that the person in possession of the property knew or should have known that the property had been stolen.
(Emphasis supplied.)
Edwards asserts that the inference created by this provision violates his rights to due process and against self-incrimination. The inference arising from the unexplained possession of stolen property, and jury instructions referring to it, have been specifically approved by both Florida and federal courts. Barnes v. United States, 412 U.S. 837, 93 S.Ct. 2357, 37 L.Ed.2d 380 (1973); State v. Young, 217 So. 2d 567 (Fla.1968); Griffin v. State, 370 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) (reversed on other grounds). Since there is a rational connection between the fact proven (the defendant possessed stolen goods) and the fact presumed (the defendant knew the goods were stolen), the inference created by section 812.022(2) does not violate Edwards’ due process rights. Further, the statute, and the jury instruction derived from it, did not force Edwards to testify. Edwards could have attempted to explain his possession of the stolen goods by evidence other than his own testimony. Even if he had failed to present any evidence in explanation, the jury was not compelled to find him guilty. Therefore, section 812.022(2) does not violate the fifth and fourteenth amendment right to remain silent. See Barnes, 412 U.S. at 846-47, 93 S.Ct. 2357; and Young, 217 So. 2d at 570-71.
Edwards’ challenges to the constitutionality of section 812.019 are identical to those considered and rejected by this Court in State v. Dickinson, 370 So. 2d 762 (Fla.1979). We reaffirm our decision in Dickinson.
Accordingly, we affirm the ruling by the circuit court of the nineteenth judicial circuit, upholding the validity of sections 812.-019 and 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (1977).
It is so ordered.
ENGLAND, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON, SUNDBERG, ALDERMAN and McDONALD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Consalvo v. State, 697 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 1996)…d that a suicide defense was implicitly raised by defense counsel. . Jury instructions referring to the inference arising from the unexplained possession of stolen property have been specifically approved by this Court. See, e.g., Edwards v. State, 381 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 1980), and cases cited therein. . Detective Doethlaff testified on direct examination what he told the appellant would happen if Pezza filed charges against him: I told him, for starters, it was his word against her’s because there was not p…
-
Brown v. State, 426 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…on between the fact proven (the defendant possessed stolen goods) and the fact presumed (the defendant knew the goods were stolen), the inference created by section 812.022(2) does not violate [the defendant’s] due process rights.” Edwards v. State, 381 So. 2d 696, 697 (Fla.1980). There is a similar rational connection here. In addition to evidence revealing both defendants’ possession of the stolen check, without reasonable explanation therefor, the record discloses possession by appellant’s accomplice of a…
-
Coleman v. State, 466 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that the person in possession of the property knew or should have known that the property had been stolen. The inference created by the statute is sufficient to convict. Edwards v. State, 381 So. 2d 696 (Fla.1980); cf. State v. Young, 217 So. 2d 567 (Fla.1968), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 853, 90 S.Ct. 112, 24 L.Ed.2d 101 (1969) (burglary conviction upheld for unexplained possession of goods recently stolen where a building has been broken into and ente…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Barnes v. United States, 412 U.S. 837 (U.S. 1973)
- State v. Young, 217 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 1968)
- State v. Dickinson, 370 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 1979)
- Griffin v. State, 370 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)