W. M. GROOMS, 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 the conviction of W. M. Grooms for larceny of an automobile because the trial court's jury instruction improperly required the defendant to provide a "satisfactory" explanation for his possession of recently stolen property, when the law requires only a "reasonable and credible" explanation.
The trial court erred in requiring a "satisfactory" explanation. The law requires only that the explanation be "reasonable and credible," not "satisfactory." Placing the burden of providing a "satisfactory" explanation exceeds what the law requires and deprives the defendant of a fair consideration of his explanation by the jury.
“a person found in possession of property recently stolen is presumed by law to be the thief unless he directly give a satisfactory and credible explanation of his possession”
The problematic jury instruction given by the trial court that required a "satisfactory" rather than merely "reasonable and credible" explanation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGrooms was jointly indicted with two others for stealing an automobile. The car disappeared from its owner's location and was found days later in anot…
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 Larceny Of An Automobile cases and more on FLexlaw
West, J.
Plaintiff in error was jointly indicted with two other persons charged with the offense of larceny of an automobile. Upon a trial verdict of guilty as charged was returned against all of the three. To the judgment im posing sentence upon him plaintiff in error took writ of error from this court.
Several rulings of the trial court are brought up for review by assignments of error, but it is necessary to notice only one of such assignments.
The automobile alleged to have been stolen disappeared from the place where it was usually kept by the owner and was found a few days later in another State in the possession of plaintiff in error and two other persons jointly indicted with him, who were there arrested and charged with the theft. Upon a joint trial of all the defendants this charge was given: ‘ ‘ Gentlemen, at the request of the State Attorney, I charge you further that a person found in possession of property recently stolen is presumed by law to be the thief unless he directly give a satisfactory and credible explanation of his possession. Whether or not the explanation given by any of the defendants in this case is a reasonable and satisfactory explanation is for the jury to determine from all of the facts and circumstances in the case.” This is the only charge upon this point.
That the property alleged to have been recently stolen was found in the possession of him and the other person charged with the larceny was not denied by 'the plaintiff in error. It is admitted, but he explains that he had no participation in the taking and' denies that he had any knowledge that it was unlawfully taken. His explanation may be sufficient to exonerate him, or at léast to raise in the minds of the jury a reasonable doubt of his guilt. It presents a question of fact which he is entitled to have the jury consider and pass upon under an instruction fairly presenting the law applicable in such cases. Capello v. State, 82 Fla. 313, 90 South. Rep. 191. The law requires only that the explanation be “reasonable and credible.” It does not require that it be “satisfactory.” To place upon him a burden of a “satisfactory” and credible explanation of his possession is more than the law requires. The precise question has been decided by this court. Bellamy v. State, 35 Fla. 242, 17 South. Rep. 560. See also Words an Phrases, First and Second Series, titles “Reasr onable” and Satisfactory”; Greenleaf on Evidence, 16 Ed., Sec. 2.
For the error in giving this charge the judgment must be reversed.
Reversed.
Browne, G. J., and Taylor, Whitfield and Ellis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kilkrease v. State, 96 Fla. 264 (Fla. 1928)…was true by two unimpeached witnesses, and in addition thereto offers satisfactory proof of alibi, and none of this testimony is impeached or rebutted, a different situation is presented. Collier v. State, 55 Fla. 7, 45 So. R. 752; Grooves v. State 83 Fla. 547, 92 So. R. 153; Bellamy v. State 35 Fla. 242, 17 So. R. 560; 36 C. J. 873, 876. Even the unexplained possession of property recently stolen does not raise a presumption of the plaintiff in error’s guilt as a matter of law. The presumption of guilt i…
-
Carlton v. State, 108 Fla. 34 (Fla. 1933)…ds recently stolen. Bargesser v. State 95 Fla. 401, 116 Sou. Rep. 11; Kirkland v. State, 82 Fla. 118. 89 Sou. Rep. 356; Capello v. State, 82 Fla. 313, 90 Sou. Rep. 191; Cooper v. State, 83 Fla. 34, 90 Sou. Rep. 693, 23 A. L. R. 109; Grooms v. State, 83 Fla. 547, 92 Sou. Rep. 153; Tucker v. State, 86 Fla. 36, 96 Sou. Rep. 10. Under the foregoing rule, the charge given by the Court was harmful error for which a new trial should have been granted under the first count as well as the other count. This is so b…
-
Milford Garner v. State, 134 Fla. 252 (Fla. 1938)…of recently stolen property, gave a reasonable and credible explanation as to how he came into such possession, the burden was cast upon the State to prove that such explanation was untrue. Leslie v. State, 35 Fla. 171, 17 Sou. 555; Groom v. State, 83 Fla. 547, 92 Sou. 153. Whether such explanation as is above referred to is a reasonable and credible one is a question for the jury to determine. Tucker v. State, 86 Fla. 36, 96 Sou. 10. It is elementary that when the burden rests upon the State to prove a…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bellamy v. State, 35 Fla. 242 (Fla. 1895)
- Andrea v. State, 82 Fla. 313 (Fla. 1921)