GEORGE FRANKLIN, 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.
Franklin was convicted of receiving stolen goods with knowledge they were stolen. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that the state failed to prove the essential element of knowledge, as the undisputed evidence showed Franklin reluctantly stored goods for another and immediately disclosed them to officers.
The conviction is reversed because the state failed to prove knowledge that the goods were stolen. An essential element of the crime was not established by any evidence or circumstantial evidence that would put a person of ordinary intelligence and caution on inquiry.
“It is essential to a conviction for receiving stolen property that the receiver shall have knowledge that the property was stolen at the time of its reception, or of such circumstances as would put a man of ordinary intelligence and caution on inquiry.”
Establishes the required mental element for the crime of receiving stolen goods.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFranklin allowed boxes of goods to be placed in his store on Saturday evening by someone who requested they remain there overnight. Within thirty minu…
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 Knowledge Of Stolen Property cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
Franklin was convicted of receiving stolen goods knowing them to have been stolen, and took writ of error. It is essential to a conviction for receiving stolen property that the receiver shall have knowledge that the property was stolen at the time of its reception, or of such circumstances as would put a man of ordinary intelligence and caution on inquiry. Minor v. State, 55 Fla. 90, 45 South. Rep. 818.
Where a particular fact is an essential element in the commission of a crime, and in a prosecution for such a crime there is no evidence showing the essential fact, and no evidence from which the existence of such essential fact may fairly be inferred, a verdict of guilty of the crime of which such non-proven fact is an essential part, may be set aside by an appellate court. See McDonald v. State, 56 Fla. 74, 47 South. Rep. 485; Baker v. State, 54 Fla. 12, 44 South. Rep. 719.
The uncontradicted evidence shows that about dark Saturday night the defendant Franklin reluctantly allowed boxes of goods to be put in his store by a person who asked that they be allowed to remain there over Suncfay. Within thirty minutes after they were put in the store officers asked if anyone had left anything there lately. Franklin promptly showed the boxes to the officers and told them when and why they were put there. There is nothing in the record to indicate that Franklin knew the goods were stolen, and there are no circumstances in evidence that were calculated to put him upon inquiry or to lead to the conclusion that Franklin knew the goods were stolen. Minor v. State, supra. This being so an essential element of the alleged crime has not been proved, and the judgment of conviction is reversed.
Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Cockrell and Hooker, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Augusta Hamilton v. State, 129 Fla. 219 (Fla. 1937)…alment of said money, goods or property that the same was stolen, or being apprised of circumstances that would put a man of ordinary intelligence on inquiry as to the stolen character of the money, goods or property. Franklin v. State, 66 Fla. 213, 63 So. 418; Winton v. State, 87 Fla. 104, 99 So. 249; Hart v. State, 92 Fla. 809, 110 So. 253. We think the information, while inartfully drawn, is sufficient to satisfy the.rules laid down above. It charges that the property had before then been stolen, and…
-
State v. Graham, 238 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 1970)…hat one naturally associates with the person who aids , the thief by disposing of his ill-gotten wares. Such convictions were reversed even though the evidence showed defendant with possession of the stolen goods. See Franklin v. State, 66 Fla. 213, 63 So. 418 (1913); Worster v. State, 82 Fla. 463, 90 So. 188 (1921); Knowles v. State, 86 Fla. 270, 97 So. 716 (1923); Winton v. State, 87 Fla. 104, 99 So. 249 (1924); Stephenson v. State, supra; Fisk v. State, supra. In Ard v. State, supra, relied upon by pe…
-
Knowles v. State, 86 Fla. 270 (Fla. 1923)…he received the property or when he aided in its concealment, had knowledge of the larceny of the property, or of such circumstances as would put a man of ordinary intelligence and caution on inquiry, is essential to a conviction. Franklin v. State, 66 Fla. 213, 63 South. Rep. 418; Minor v. State, 55 Fla. 90, 45 South. Rep. 818. Defining larceny in an instruction given is simply defining the thing of which defendant must have had knowledge, which is an essential element of the crime charged. Larceny is a c…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Angus McDonald v. State, 56 Fla. 74 (Fla. 1908)
- Minor v. State, 55 Fla. 90 (Fla. 1908)
- Baker v. State, 54 Fla. 12 (Fla. 1907)