JOHN WORSTER, JR., 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.
John Worster, Jr. was convicted of receiving stolen property, but the Florida Supreme Court reversed because the State failed to prove that Worster knew the automobile tire was stolen at the time he received it—an essential element of the crime.
The conviction cannot be upheld. Knowledge by the accused that the property was stolen at the time of reception or concealment is an essential element of the crime, and in the absence of proof of this element, the judgment must be reversed.
“One of the essential elements of the crime charged is knowledge by the accused at the time of the reception or concealment of the goods alleged to have been received or concealed that they had been previously stolen.”
Establishes the legal requirement that knowledge of theft is an essential element of the crime
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWorster was charged with receiving, buying, and aiding in the concealment of a stolen automobile tire. The person who actually stole the tire admitted…
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 Receiving Stolen Property cases and more on FLexlaw
West, J.
Plaintiff in error was informed against in the Criminal Court of Record of Duval County upon a charge of receiving, buying and aiding in the concealment of certain stolen personal property knowing the same to have been stolen. At the trial a verdict of guilty as charged was returned. Sentence was imposed and writ of error taken to review the judgment pronouncing sentence.
Several assignments of error raise questions of procedure in the trial of the case but the conclusion reached renders it unnecessary to discuss more than one of them.
One of the essential elements of the crime charged is knowledge by the accused at the time of the reception or concealment of the goods alleged to have been received or concealed that they had been previously stolen. Section 5138 Revised General Statutes of Florida; Franklin v. State, 66 Fla. 213, 63 South. Rep. 418; Minor v. State, 55 Fla. 90, 45 South. Rep. 818. In the absence of proof of this element a conviction cannot be upheld.
In this case the property alleged to have been stolen was an automobile fire. It appears from the record that the person accused of the theft admitted it and entered pleas ol: guilty. At the trial of plaintiff in error they testified that at his direction they placed the tire under the house in which he lived; that he was to sell it for them and that he advanced to them a sum of money on it; but there is no proof of knowledge on his part that the property was stolen. His relation to the transaction is not inconsistent with innocence. It may be that upon another trial proof of this element can be supplied, but in its absence there was error in tbe Court’s order overruling the motion for new trial. For this error the judgment must be reversed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield and Ellis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Graham, 238 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 1970)…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 petitioner, the Court held that the jury…
-
Hart v. State, 92 Fla. 809 (Fla. 1926)…such fact as would put a man of ordinary intelligence and caution on inquiry. See Franklin v. State, 66 Fla. 213, 63 South, Rep. 418; Minor v. State, 55 Fla. 90, 45 South. Rep. 818, Licata v. State, 81 Fla. 649, 88 South. Rep. 621; Worster v. State, 82 Fla. 463, 90 South. Rep. 188; Knowles v. State, 86 Fla. 270, 97 South. Rep. 716; Winton v. State, 87 Fla. 104, 99 South. Rep. 249. When a particular fact is an essential element in the commission of a crime and in a prosecution for such a crime there is no…
-
Dewey v. State, 135 Fla. 443 (Fla. 1938)…t the defendant, but the jury had the authority under the instruction, supra, to reduce the grade of the offense as the facts established would justify. This is not the law. See Hart v. State, 92 Fla. 809, 110 So. 253; Worster v. State, 82 Fla. 463, 90 So. 188; Franklin v. State, 66 Fla. 213, 63 So. 418. The defendant should have a new trial. Brown, J., concurs'.…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Franklin v. State, 66 Fla. 213 (Fla. 1913)
- Minor v. State, 55 Fla. 90 (Fla. 1908)