JAMES WILLIAMS, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a conviction for receiving stolen property, holding that the evidence was insufficient to prove the defendant's knowledge that the property was stolen. The court also found that a new trial should have been granted based on newly discovered evidence.
No, the evidence was insufficient to prove the defendant's knowledge that the property was stolen. Yes, the motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence should have been granted.
“This Court has repeatedly held that knowledge of the stolen char [*226] acter of the goods or of circumstances that would put one on inquiry as to their stolen character, is essential to conviction under the statute.”
Establishes the legal standard for conviction under the statute for receiving 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 intelligenceJames Williams was convicted of receiving and buying stolen property. The state's case relied on circumstantial evidence that the court found insuffic…
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 Newly Discovered Evidence Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff in error was tried and convicted in the Criminal Court of Record of Duval County on an information charging him with receiving and buying stolen property. He was sentenced to five years in the state penitentiary, to which judgment this writ of error was taken.
It is contended here that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction, that the motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence was erroneously denied, and that the alleged stolen property was improperly admitted in evidence.
Section 5138 Revised General Statutes of 1920 (Section 7239 Compiled General Laws of 1927), the authority for the information, is leveled at those who buy, receive or aid in the concealment of stolen money, goods, or property, knowing the same to have been stolen. This Court has repeatedly held that knowledge of the stolen char*226acter of the goods or of circumstances that would put one on inquiry as to their stolen character, is essential to conviction under the statute. Worster vs. State, 82 Fla. 463, 90 So. 188; Winton vs. State, 87 Fla. 104, 99 So. 249.
Under former decisions of this Court the evidence is not sufficient to show knowledge of the stolen character of the goods or to put the defendant on inquiry as to such character. Minor vs. State, 55 Fla. 90, 45 So. 418; Worster vs. State, supra; Franklin vs. State, 66 Fla. 213, 63 So. 418; Stephenson vs. State, 89 Fla. 351, 104 So. 600; Winton vs. State, supra; Knowles vs. State, 86 Fla. 270, 97 So. 716. The evidence in this case at best, raises nothing more than a suspicion. We are also convinced that under the facts here presented the motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence should have been granted. Howard vs. State, 36 Fla. 21, 17 So. 84; Adams vs. State, 55 Fla. 1, 46 So. 152; Tyson vs. State, 87 Fla. 392, 100 So. 254; Kawark vs. State, 19 Ala. App. 279, 97 So. 113.
Reversed.
Ellis, Brown and Davis, J.J., concur.
Buford, C.J., and Whitfield, J., dissent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lawson v. State, 125 Fla. 335 (Fla. 1936)…in controversy were stolen property, or knowledge of such facts on the receiver’s part as would put a man of ordinary intelligence and caution on inquiry as to their stolen character. Hart v. State, 92 Fla. 809, 110 Sou. Rep. 253; Williams v. State, 106 Fla. 225, 143 Sou. Rep. 157; Minor v. State, 55 Fla. 90, 45 Sou. Rep. 818. But in any case, if there be reasonable doubt as to the required guilty knowledge on the receiver’s part, or reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant had knowledge of subsidiary…
-
McQUEEN v. State, 304 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)…was such as to permit, perhaps impel, the jury to have concluded that McQueen either knew, or should have known, that the calculator had in fact been stolen — an indispensable element of the crime with which he was charged. E. g., Williams v. State, 106 Fla. 225, 143 So. 157 (1932); Lampley v. State, Fla.App.1968, 214 So. 2d 515; Mayer v. State, Fla.App.1970, 231 So. 2d 540. Thus, there is no difficulty in concluding that all the evidence, including the confession, see Holland v. State, 39 Fla. 178, 22 So.…
-
Johnson v. State, 127 Fla. 100 (Fla. 1937)…. 90, 45 So. 818; Franklin v. State, 66 Fla. 213, 63 So. 418; Worster v. State, 82 Fla. 463, 90 So. 188; Knowles v. State, 86 Fla. 270, 97 So. 716; Winton v. State, 87 Fla. 104, 99 So. 249; Hart v. State, 92 Fla. 809, 110 So. 253; Williams v. State, 106 Fla. 225, 143 So. 157. Roscoe Osteen and Earl Hickman, State witnesses, testified that they went to the defendant’s filling station about eight o’clock on the morning of March 6, 1936; that defendant told them that he wanted them to get him some fruit, five…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tyson v. State, 87 Fla. 392 (Fla. 1924)
- Franklin v. State, 66 Fla. 213 (Fla. 1913)
- Knowles v. State, 86 Fla. 270 (Fla. 1923)
- Howard v. State, 36 Fla. 21 (Fla. 1895)
- Minor v. State, 55 Fla. 90 (Fla. 1908)
- Winton v. State, 87 Fla. 104 (Fla. 1924)
- Worster v. State, 82 Fla. 463 (Fla. 1921)
- January Adams v. State, 55 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1908)
- Stephenson v. State, 89 Fla. 351 (Fla. 1925)