DAN KIRKLAND AND JOE HALE, PLAINTIFFS 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.
Kirkland and Hale appealed their conviction for grand larceny of approximately $1,000 in merchandise stolen from a store. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that circumstantial evidence of the defendants' connection to recently stolen property, combined with the unexplained possession of the stolen goods by a co-defendant, was sufficient to support a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court held that unexplained possession of recently stolen property is sufficient to support a guilty verdict for larceny, and that larceny may be proved by circumstantial evidence if it is of sufficient probative force to support a legal inference of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The circumstantial evidence presented was legally sufficient to support the verdict.
“The unexplained possession of recently stolen property is sufficient proof to uphold a verdict of guilty upon a charge of larceny.”
Establishes the legal principle that unexplained possession of recently stolen goods supports conviction for larceny.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThree defendants were indicted for breaking and entering with intent to commit felony and grand larceny. A large quantity of merchandise valued at nea…
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 Breaking And Entering With Intent To Commit A Felony cases and more on FLexlaw
West, J.
Upon an indictment charging three defendants in the first count with the crime of .breaking and .entering with the intent to commit a felony and in the second count with the crime of grand larceny there was a trial and verdict of guilty as charged in the second count. Motion for new trial was made and denied and sentences were imposed. To review the judgments imposing sentences on plaintiffs in error, two of the defendants, writ of error was taken from this court.
The order overruling the motion for new trial is assigned as error. The only question presented is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict.
The property alleged to have been stolen was a large quantity of merchandise, proved to be of little less than $1,000 in value, taken from a store building. The property was found concealed-in a barn on the premises occupied by one of the defendants within less than a week after it was alleged to have been taken. It was recovered and re stored to the owners and there seems to be no question about the identity of the property, the only question being whether the plaintiffs in error were connected with or participated in the theft. The defendant in whose possession the property was found is not a party to this record. At the trial he admitted that the stolen goods were taken from his possession but testified that he bought them on the morning after they were alleged to have been taken from the store in the night time.
He asserted that he had known the person from whom he bought the goods for a number of years. He disclosed for the first time how he came into possession of the stolen goods when he went on the stand as a witness at the trial. The party from whom he obtained them was not produced.
This explanation was rejected by the jury. That they did not believe it is apparent from the verdict returned. The unexplained possession of recently stolen property is sufficient proof to uphold a verdict of guilty upon a charge of larceny. McDonald v. State, 56 Fla. 74, 47 South. Rep. 485. As to plaintiffs in error the evidence is circumstantial, but larceny may be proved by circumstantial evidence if it is of sufficient probative force to support a legal inference of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. McDonald v. State, supra; Kennedy v. State, 31 Fla. 428, 12 South. Rep. 858; Chamberlayne’s Best on Evidence, 192.
The evidence is somewhat voluminous. No benefit would be derived from reciting the various circumstances tending to connect plaintiffs in error with the crime. The fact of the larceny being proved, other facts in proof are sufficient basis for the legal inference of guilt of all the defendants as found by the jury. Where the evidence is legally sufficient to support the verdict and there is nothing to indicate that the jury was influenced by considerations outside the evidence, the verdict will be affirmed. Hamlin v. State, 80 Fla. 217, 85 South. Rep. 685; Brown v. State, 79 Fla. 523, 84 South. Rep. 384; Wallace v. State, 76 Fla. 175, 79 South. Rep. 634; Messer v. State, 75 Fla. 619, 78 South. Rep. 80; McCoy v. State, 75 Fla. 294, 78 South. Rep. 168; Herndon v. State, 73 Fla. 451, 74 South. Rep. 511; Barrentine v. State, 72 Fla. 1, 72 South. Rep. 280; McClellan v. State, 66 Fla. 215, 63 South. Rep. 419.
Affirmed.
Taylor, Whitfield and Ellis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
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…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (12 total)
- Angus McDonald v. State, 56 Fla. 74 (Fla. 1908)
- Kennedy v. State, 31 Fla. 428 (Fla. 1893)
- Herndon v. State, 73 Fla. 451 (Fla. 1917)
- Creveling v. Chambers, 73 Fla. 512 (Fla. 1917)
- Barrentine v. State, 72 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1916)
- Tobe Wallace v. State, 76 Fla. 175 (Fla. 1918)
- McClellan v. State, 66 Fla. 215 (Fla. 1913)
- Messer v. State, 75 Fla. 619 (Fla. 1918)
- Hamlin v. State, 80 Fla. 217 (Fla. 1920)
- Sawyers v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2026)