W. P. SMITH, B. B. BROWN, J. N. C. STOCKTON AND CANAL LUMBER COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,

v.

BLANCHE D. RENTZ, AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF J. A. RENTZ, DECEASED, APPELLEES

Citator

Cited By (11 total)

• Bargesser v. State, 95 Fla. 401 (Fla. 1928)
  …or of the theft. Larceny may be proven by circumstantial evidence of such a nature and probative force that the jury could legally infer guilt therefrom beyond a reasonable doubt. Kennedy v. State, 31 Fla. 428, 12 South. Rep. 858; Kirkland v. State, 82 Fla. 118, 89 South. Rep. 356. The established rule is that where there is evidence from which all the elements of the crime may have been lawfully found or inferred, and it does not appear that the jury was not governed by the evidence, the verdict will not…
• Casso v. State, 182 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
  …n by circumstantial evidence of such a nature and probative force that the jury could legally infer guilt therefrom beyond a reasonable doubt.” Cross v. State, 96 Fla. 768, 119 So. 380; Bargesser v. State, 95 Fla. 401, 116 So. 11; Kirkland v. State, 82 Fla. 118, 89 So. 356; Johnson v. State, 157 Fla. 328, 25 So. 2d 801. The language used by the Supreme Court of Florida in Murray v. State, supra, is quite apropos here: “The evidence in this case might well have sustained a conviction for larceny, for ther…
• Kearson v. State, 123 Fla. 324 (Fla. 1936)
  …justified in finding the defendant Brown guilty of larceny, under the circumstances. A verdict of guilty of larceny may be found from unexplained possession of goods recently stolen. See McDonald v. State, 56 Fla. 74, 47 So. 485; Kirkland v. State, 82 Fla. 118, 89 So. 356; Capello v. State, 82 Fla. 313, 90 So. 191; Tucker v. State, 86 Fla. 36, 96 So. 10. There was no explanation made as to the possession of this property by defendants, and the jury was warranted in finding defendant Brown guilty, provided…