JOHN COLLIER, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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.
John Collier was convicted of entering a railroad car without breaking it with intent to steal, and sentenced to one year imprisonment. On appeal, he challenged the sufficiency of evidence, but the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding the evidence adequate to support the jury's verdict despite a minor discrepancy in the quantity of stolen goods recovered.
The evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. The court found the jury's rejection of Collier's explanation for possessing the gum to be reasonable, and any apparent discrepancy between the quantity stolen and the quantity recovered was attributable to the use of approximate language in the evidence rather than a genuine evidentiary gap.
“The jury found this explanation unsatisfactory and we do not feel disposed to interfere with this finding.”
Establishes the court's deference to the jury's credibility determination regarding the defendant's explanation for possessing the stolen gum.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA railroad car was entered and approximately thirty packages of Colgan's Taffy Chewing Gum and three pounds of cheese were stolen. The next morning, C…
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 Intent to Commit a Misdemeanor cases and more on FLexlaw
Cockrell, J.
—This case was assigned Jo Division A, but there being a difference of opinion among its members, was referred to the whole court sitting in a body for decision.
John Collier was adjudged guilty in the criminal court for Volusia county of the crime of entering without breaking a railroad car with intent to commit a misdemeanor, to-wit, to steal property of the value of $2.60. He was sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison for a period of one year and upon writ of error thereto assigns the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict.
From the evidence it appears that a railroad car had been entered and about thirty packages of Colgan’s Taffy Chewing Gum was taken from a jar that had been broken, also about three pounds of cheese. The next morning Collier was found near the car with about thirty packages of the identical kind of gum on his person and while being taken to custody threw out of his pocket furtively paper which was subsequently gathered up and ascertained to be wrappings of this particular kind of gum, and upon the floor of the room where he was arrested and immediately behind where he sat there was a “great deal” of chewing gum which he had thrown down.
While the accused denied the entry and stealing, the only attempt at explanation of the possession of the large quantity of this particular kind of chewing-gum, is that several days before he had purchased at Sanford some juicy fruit chewing gum. The jury found tbis explanation unsatisfactory and we do not feel disposed to interfere with this finding. There may be a slight discrepancy in that the state may have overproyed its case by showing that more chewing gum was found on the person than was taken from the car. The discrepancy is apparent rather than real. The evidence is not that exactly thirty packages were found at the subsequent search while a “great deal” of gum was thrown away in the room; but that “about” thirty packages were taken and the “great deal” of gum found in the room is undoubtedly a relative term, not fully explained, and may legitimately come within the limits of excess over thirty covered by the qualification of “about” previously mentioned.
The judgment is affirmed.
Shackleford, C. J., Taylor, Hocker and Park-hill, JJ., concur;
(Whitfield, J., dissents.)
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thompson v. State, 58 Fla. 106 (Fla. 1909)…tion or conclusion of law from the unexplained possession of property recently stolen, but an inference of guilt as a matter of fact may be drawn therefrom by the jury to be considered by them in connection with the other evidence. Collier v. State, 55 Fla. 11, 45 South. Rep. 753; Lamps v. State, 51 Fla. 51, 40 South. Rep. 180; Roberson v. State, 40 Fla. 509, 24 South. Rep. 474; Rimes v. State, 36 Fla. 90, 18 South. Rep. 114; Leslie v. State, 35 Fla. 171, 17 South. Rep. 555; Tilly v. State, 21 Fla. 242. S…