STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
BILLY CARROLL, 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.
Florida appeals the dismissal of charges against Billy Carroll for dealing in stolen property. The court reverses the dismissal, holding that once the state proves the item was stolen and the defendant was in possession of it, a statutory presumption of knowledge arises, making knowledge a jury question rather than something that can be dismissed on summary judgment.
The court held that once the state proves the item was stolen and the accused was dealing in it, a statutory presumption arises that the possessor knew or should have known the goods were stolen. The defendant's knowledge then becomes a jury question, not a matter for dismissal on summary judgment. The defendant must give a reasonable explanation, and the jury determines credibility.
[1] A motion to dismiss under Rule 3.190(c)(4), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, is properly granted only when the undisputed facts alleged do not establish a prima facie…
[2] Possession of recently stolen property creates a presumption that the possessor knew or should have known the property was stolen.
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“Possession of recently stolen property gives rise to the presumption the possessor knew or should have known the goods are stolen.”
Establishes the statutory presumption under Section 812.022 that makes the defendant's knowledge a jury question once possession and dealing are proven.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBilly Carroll was charged with dealing in stolen property. Carroll admitted he possessed a record player valued at $10, received it from someone named…
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 Presumption Of Knowledge cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Chief Judge.
This is an appeal from an order dismissing a charge of dealing in stolen property.
After being charged with the crime the appellee filed a motion under Rule 3.190(c)(4), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, alleging the essential facts of the case are undisputed and those facts do not establish a prima facie case of guilt against him. He said
a) the Defendant, Billy Carroll, was in possession of a record player identified by the owner and valued at $10.00, on or about June 25, 1980.
b) the Defendant, Billy Carroll, sold the record player to a pawn shop and received $5.00 for this to the best of his memory.
c) the Defendant, Billy Carroll, received this record player from an individual named “Johnny” the day before he sold it.
d) the Defendant, Billy Carroll, never had any idea this record player was stolen.
The state in its traverse set out certain “disputed” facts which are irrelevant and inadmissible at trial in this case and which do not effectively traverse the appellee’s motion. However, the traverse does correctly point out that the question as to whether the appellant knew the record player was stolen is a jury question once the state proves the appellant was in possession of the recently stolen property. The law has provided a presumption of fact. Possession of recently stolen property gives rise to the presumption the possessor knew or should have known the goods are stolen. Sec. 812.022, Fla.Stat. (1979). Edwards v. State, 381 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 1980). Thus in order to establish the criminal liability of the appellee it is necessary for the state only to prove the item was stolen and the accused was dealing in it. Once that is established then it is up to the accused to give a reasonable explanation for his having possessed and sold it, if he is to escape conviction. It is up to the trier of the facts, not the judge on summary judgment, to determine the truth of his story. If that were not so then all an accused person would have to do would be to deny knowledge or intent and the state would be out of court without a trial to determine the matter. “C-4” motions, like civil summary judgment motions, should be granted rarely because most cases involve disputed facts and trials are for the resolution of disputed facts. Jones v. State, 392 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); State v. West, 262 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
ORFINGER and FRANK D. UP-CHURCH, Jr., JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. West, 262 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)
- Edwards v. State, 381 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 1980)
- Jones v. State, 392 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)