MICHAEL FRANCIS CAVAGNARO, 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.
The court held that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to support the jury's finding that the defendant knew the property was stolen.
The defendant was convicted of dealing in stolen property. The state's only direct evidence that the defendant knew the property was stolen was from a…
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 Dealing In Stolen Property cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals his conviction for dealing in stolen property in violation of section 812.019(1), Florida Statutes (1983). We reverse.
One of the requirements of this crime, as defined in section 812.019(1), is that defendant knew or should have known that the property was, in fact, stolen property. The only direct evidence presented at trial on this point was supplied by a witness for the state who testified that he informed the defendant that the property was stolen. However, that witness further testified that he told defendant that he was only “kidding”, and that the property, in fact, was not stolen. Consequently, the witness himself negated the only direct evidence indicating that defendant might have known the property was stolen.
The only remaining evidence supporting the jury’s finding that defendant knew the property was stolen was fragmentary and circumstantial. We have applied the standard for review of jury verdicts based on circumstantial evidence enunciated in Heiney v. State, 447 So. 2d 210 (Fla.1984), and find that this verdict is not supported by substantial, competent evidence.
Therefore, the defendant’s conviction for dealing in stolen property is reversed.
HURLEY, DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.