CHARLES GLISSON, 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 affirmed Charles Glisson's conviction for breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor, holding that unexplained possession of recently stolen property can support such a conviction when the defendant fails to provide a reasonable and credible explanation.
Unexplained possession of property recently stolen from a building by breaking and entering may be sufficient to warrant conviction of the crime. When a defendant is found in possession of such goods but fails to provide a reasonable and credible account of how he obtained them, the jury may infer guilt as a matter of fact, and the verdict may be properly sustained.
“When a building has been entered and property stolen therefrom, and soon thereafter the property is found in the possession of the person charged with entering the building with intent to steal, such possession unexplained may be sufficient to warrant a conviction of the crime of entering the building with intent to steal.”
Establishes the core rule that unexplained possession of recently stolen property can support a conviction for breaking and entering with intent to steal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGlisson and another were jointly indicted and convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor. Property was stolen from a build…
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 Misdemeanor cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
The plaintiff in error and one other were jointly indicted and were convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor. On this writ of error it is contended that the verdict of guilty as to the plaintiff-in error is not sustained by the evidence.
When a building has been entered and property stolen therefrom, and soon thereafter the property is found in the possession of the person charged with entering the building with intent to steal, such possession unexplained may -be sufficient to warrant a conviction of the crime of entering the building with intent to steal.
The guilt of the accused does not follow as a presump tion of law from the unexplained possession of the property recently stolen, but the presumption of guilt in such a case is one that the jury may infer as a matter of fact, of which they are the sole judges, to be considered in connection with all the other circumstances in each particular case.
When a party who is charged with the breaking and entering a building with intent to steal is found in possession of goods recently stolen and directly gives a reasonable and creditable account of how he came into such possession, or such an account as will raise a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury, then it becomes the duty of the State to prove that such account is untrue, otherwise he should be acquitted. The account given must be, not only reasonable, but it must be credable or sufficiently so. to raise a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury, who are the judges'of its reasonableness and probability as well as of its credibility. The account given may be reasonable and highly plausible, and yet the jury may not believe a word of -it to be true. In the latter case they would have the right to convict upon proof that the building was broken and entered and the evidence furnished by the possession of the stolen goods, even though the State had not put in any proof directly to prove the falsity of the account given.
The finding upon a person of property of such peculiar nature and condition that it can be easily and positively identified which was shortly before, stolen from a building by breaking and entering may be by the jury taken as evidence of guilt of the breaking and entering the building with intent to steal, and in the absence of a reasonable and credible account of the possession of the property given by the defendant, the jury may find a verdict of guilty of breaking and entering the building with intent to steal. Collier v. State, 55 Fla. 7, 45 South. Rep. 752; Thompson v. State, 58 Fla. 106, 50 South. Rep. 507; Tilly v. State, 21 Fla. 242; Leslie v. State, 35 Fla. 171, 17 South. Rep. 555; Rimes v. State, 36 Fla. 90, 18 South. Rep. 114.
An appellate court should not grant a new trial upon the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain a verdict of guilty affirmed by the trial court if there is some evidence of all the facts legally essential to support the verdict, and the whole evidence is such that the verdict may have fairly been found on it. McDonald v. State, 56 Fla. 74, 47 South. Rep. 485.
There is substantial evidence of the finding of some of the stolen goods in the possession of the plaintiff in error at his home and such possession was not satisfactorily explained by the plaintiff in error or by any one else. See Lamps v. State, 51 Fla. 51, 40 South. Rep. 180.
No material or prejudicial errors appearing in the transcript of the record, the judgment is affirmed.
Taylor, C. J., and Ellis, West and Terrell, JJ., concur. Browne, J., not participating
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Turner v. State, 99 Fla. 246 (Fla. 1930)…he wa,s and I found out through Mrs. Pate. She told me who it was and I went and had him arrested and carried to jail and them fellows said they never saw him before in their-life. That fellow was Earl Shull.” [*249] In the case of Glisson v. State, 85 Fla. 493, 96 So. R. 840, this Court said: “When a party who is charged with breaking and entering a building with intent to steal is found in possession of goods recently stolen from such building and directly gives a reasonable and credible account of how…
-
Bicking v. State, 293 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)…judice and is in accordance with the holdings in the cases hereinabove cited as well as Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 89 S.Ct. 961, 22 L.Ed.2d 176; Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338, 60 S.Ct. 266, 84 L.Ed. 307, and Glisson v. State, 85 Fla. 493, 96 So. 840 (1923). I have not overlooked Mann v. State, Fla.App.2d 1974, 292 So. 2d 432. I do not find that the holding of that case conflicts with the opinions herein expressed. It will be noted that there the court recited that “The testimony co…
-
D.G. v. State, 547 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…sence of a reasonable explanation, that the exclusive possessor of said stolen property is guilty of the burglary. See State v. Young, 217 So. 2d 567, 570 (Fla.1968), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 853, 90 S.Ct. 112, 24 L.Ed.2d 101 (1969); Glisson v. State, 85 Fla. 493, 96 So. 840 (1923); N.C. v. State, 478 So. 2d 1142, 1144 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Ridley v. State, 407 So. 2d 1000, 1001 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Estevez v. State, 290 So. 2d 138, 139 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). In the instant case, the juvenile D.G. was arrested…
Authorities Cited
- Angus McDonald v. State, 56 Fla. 74 (Fla. 1908)
- Leslie v. State, 35 Fla. 171 (Fla. 1895)
- Tilly v. State, 21 Fla. 242 (Fla. 1885)
- Thompson v. State, 58 Fla. 106 (Fla. 1909)
- Jasper Rimes v. State, 36 Fla. 90 (Fla. 1895)
- Collier v. State, 55 Fla. 7 (Fla. 1908)
- Lamps v. State, 51 Fla. 51 (Fla. 1906)