D.G., A JUVENILE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed a juvenile's adjudication of delinquency for grand theft, burglary of a conveyance, and malicious mischief, holding that unexplained possession of recently stolen property gives rise to a permissible inference of guilt for theft and burglary.
The trial court properly denied the motion for judgment of acquittal because unexplained possession of recently stolen property permits a factual inference of guilt for theft and burglary. The physical damage to the automobile likewise permitted an inference of malicious mischief.
[1] Unexplained possession of recently stolen property gives rise to a permissible factual inference that the possessor is guilty of larceny or theft.
[2] If recently stolen property was taken in a burglary, the exclusive possessor of that property may be inferred to be guilty of the burglary in the absence of a reasonable…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“It is well settled in Florida that a person's unexplained possession of recently stolen property gives rise to a permissible factual inference that the person in possession of such property is guilty of larceny or theft of the subject property”
Establishes the core legal principle permitting inference of theft from unexplained possession of recently stolen property
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJuvenile D.G. was arrested driving the complainant's automobile without permission within twenty-four hours after the automobile had been stolen. The …
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 Malicious Mischief cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the juvenile D.G. from an adjudication of delinquency for grand theft, burglary of a conveyance, and malicious mischief. The sole point on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying a defense motion for judgment of acquittal. We disagree and affirm. It is well settled in Florida that a person’s unexplained possession of recently stolen property gives rise to a permissible factual inference that the person in possession of such property is guilty of larceny or theft of the subject property, see Cone v. State, 69 So. 2d 175 (Fla.1953); Byrd v. State, 146 Fla. 686, 689, 1 So. 2d 624, 626 (1941); Bargesser v. State, 95 Fla. 401, 116 So. 11 (1928); Burroughs v. State, 221 So. 2d 159, 160 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969); moreover, if the recently stolen property was taken in a burglary, it may also be inferred, in absence of a reasonable explanation, that the exclusive possessor of said stolen property is guilty of the burglary. See State v. Young, 217 So. 2d 567, 570 (Fla.1968), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 853, 90 S.Ct. 112, 24 L.Ed.2d 101 (1969); Glisson v. State, 85 Fla. 493, 96 So. 840 (1923); N.C. v. State, 478 So. 2d 1142, 1144 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Ridley v. State, 407 So. 2d 1000, 1001 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Estevez v. State, 290 So. 2d 138, 139 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974).
In the instant case, the juvenile D.G. was arrested driving the complainant’s automobile without the complainant’s permission within twenty-four hours after the automobile had been stolen. The automobile showed signs of forced entry and physical damage thereto. The juvenile D.G. offered no explanation for his possession of the stolen' automobile or the damage thereto, either to the arresting officer or at trial. It is therefore plain that the trial court was permitted on this evidence to infer that the juvenile D.G. was guilty of theft and burglary of the automobile based on the above-stated authorities. We also think that the trial court was permitted on this record to infer that the physical damage to the automobile was done during the subject burglary, and that, accordingly, the juvenile D.G. was also guilty of malicious mischief.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jackson v. State, 736 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…of any vehicle identification numbers); S.P.L., 512 So. 2d at 1154 (concerning moped with broken ignition, missing license tag, and partially removed serial number in defendant’s possession within a few hours after taking from owner); D.G. v. State, 547 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (involving automobile that showed signs of forced entry and physical damage in defendant’s possession within 24 hours after taking). Jackson was not caught in a lie while giving an improbable story. Cf. J.J. v. State, 463 So. 2d 1…
-
Bertone v. State, 870 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…erson on notice” that they were stolen. Periu v. State, 490 So. 2d 1327, 1329 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (involving a car with a windshield in a “smashed-up condition” combined with the absence of any vehicle identification numbers); see also D.G. v. State, 547 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (where automobile showed signs of forced entry and physical damage in defendant’s possession within twenty-four hours after the taking). Bertone was not caught in a lie while giving an improbable story. See J.J. v. State, 463 So.…
-
Youngs v. State, 736 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…on after the theft is significant. Unexplained possession of stolen property in the early morning, after a nighttime theft, is another facet of proof, in addition to the section 812.022(2) inference, which supports the conviction. See D.G. v. State, 547 So. 2d 295, 296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); S.P.L. v. State, 512 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). This case is distinguishable from Valdez v. State, 492 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). In that case, the defendant offered an “unrefuted, exculpatory, and not unreasonabl…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (13 total)
- State v. Young, 217 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 1968)
- Bargesser v. State, 95 Fla. 401 (Fla. 1928)
- Young v. Florida, 396 U.S. 853 (U.S. 1969)
- Caffey v. Missouri, 396 U.S. 853 (U.S. 1969)
- Ridley v. State, 407 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Jollie v. State, 407 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Burroughs v. State, 221 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
- Byrd v. State, 146 Fla. 686 (Fla. 1941)
- Cone v. State, 69 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 1953)
- Ciro Estevez v. State, 290 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)