S.B., 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 court held that the trial judge's disbelief of the appellant's testimony inherently meant the possession of recently stolen property was not satisfactorily explained.
A juvenile was found driving a stolen car less than twenty-four hours after the theft. The juvenile claimed he thought the car belonged to a friend's …
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.
LEVY, Judge.
Appellant, a juvenile, was found driving a stolen car less than twenty-four hours after the theft took place. The appellant testified at his adjudicatory hearing, that he thought that the car belonged to his friend’s uncle. However, the trial judge discounted appellant’s testimony, explaining: “[Fjrankly I don’t believe him.... I don’t believe him, or come any where close to believing him. And I find, beyond and to the exclusion of any reasonable doubt, that he used this car, without its owner’s permission. That is, that he operated this stolen vehicle_ lam satisfied that ... I can find him to be lying.... ”
The court correctly considered the applicability of the statutorily created inference that a person in possession of recently stolen property either knew or should have known that the property had been stolen. Section 812.022(3) Florida Statutes (1987). The appellant, however, points to the exculpatory language, contained within that statutorily created inference, that provides that the inference will not be drawn when a person has “satisfactorily explained” the possession of recently stolen property. We are not persuaded by this argument.
When the trial judge, sitting as the trier-of-fact, found the appellant’s testimony to be unbelievable, the court was also inherently finding that the appellant’s possession of the stolen property was not “satis factorily explained”. See J.J. vs. State, 463 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).
Accordingly, we find that the trial court’s findings and rulings should be affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jackson v. State, 736 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…property in cases involving the common law inference, the finder of fact must also determine whether the property at issue was “recently” stolen, a finding which is necessary for the inference of guilty knowledge to be justified. See S.B. v. State, 555 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); State v. Grimmage, 522 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (involving five days between theft and recovery); N.C. v. State, 478 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Burroughs v. State, 221 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969). The state’s argumen…
-
E.R. v. State, 567 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See S.B. v. State, 555 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), review denied, 564 So. 2d 488 (Fla.1990); J.J. v. State, 463 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).…
-
Junus Hall v. State, 569 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Blocker v. State, 555 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); see S.B. v. State, 555 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), review denied, 564 So. 2d 488 (Fla.1990); Coleman v. State, 466 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); see also DeCastro v. State, 360 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 368 So. 2d 1365 (Fla.1979).…
Authorities Cited
- J.J. v. State, 463 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)