ROBERT WINTON, ALIAS RAOUL TRUDELL, ALIAS ROBERT FREDERICK, 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.
Robert Winton was convicted of receiving stolen property (Miramar Hotel bonds) in Dade County. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the conviction, finding insufficient evidence that Winton received the property with knowledge it was stolen or under circumstances that would alert an ordinary person to inquire into its status.
The conviction must be reversed because the prosecution failed to prove essential elements of the receiving stolen property offense: knowledge that the property was stolen at the time of reception and venue in Dade County. Mere possession of stolen property in another state is insufficient without evidence of guilty knowledge.
“It is essential to a conviction for receiving stolen property that the receiver shall have knowledge that the property was stolen at the time of its reception or of such circumstances as would put a man of ordinary intelligence and caution on inquiry.”
Establishes the legal requirement for guilty knowledge in receiving stolen property cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWinton was charged in four counts with feloniously receiving and concealing stolen Miramar Hotel bonds ($700) and other securities ($1500), and with l…
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 Proof Of Venue cases and more on FLexlaw
West, J.
-Upon an information filed against him in the criminal court of record for Dade County, the defendant, plaintiff in error here, was tried and found guilty. To review the judgment imposing sentence upon him writ of error was taken from this court.
The information contains four counts. The first charges the felonious having, receiving and aiding in the concealment of certain Miramar Hotel bonds of the value of $700, knowing them to have been stolen. The second charges the defendant with feloniously having, receiving and aiding in the concealment of certain other securities, which are particularly described, of the value of $1500, knowing them to have been stolen. The third charges the larceny by the defendant of the Miramar Hotel bonds. And the fourth charges the defendant with the larceny of the securities described in the second count.
At the conclusion of the evidence the jury were instructed in effect that there was not sufficient evidence upon which to base a conviction upon counts two and four of the information. The verdict returned found defendant guilty as charged in the first count, found the value of the property to be more than $50, and found him not guilty as to the third count.
The only question presented is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict of conviction.
The theft of the property in Dade County was sufficiently proved. Its possession by the defendant in the State of Iowa a short time after the theft was proved. But this is not sufficient. It is essential to a conviction for receiving stolen property that the receiver shall have knowledge that the property was stolen at the time of its reception or of such circumstances as would put a man of ordinary intelligence and caution on inquiry. Minor v. State, 55 Fla. 90, 45 South. Rep. 818; Franklin v. State, 66 Fla. 213, 63 South. Rep. 418. There is in the record little, if any, evidence, that the stolen property was received by the defendant in Dade County as alleged, or that he had knowledgé of the theft at the time he received it, or other evidence from which the existence of such essential fact may be fairly inferred. Because of the failure in the proof of this essential element of the crime alleged and failure to prove the venue as alleged, the judgment must be reversed for a new trial. McDonald v. State, 56 Fla. 74, 47 South. Rep. 485; Franklin v. State, supra.
Reversed.
Whitpield, P. J., and Terrell, J., concur. Taylor, C. J., and Ellis and Browne, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Augusta Hamilton v. State, 129 Fla. 219 (Fla. 1937)…at the same was stolen, or being apprised of circumstances that would put a man of ordinary intelligence on inquiry as to the stolen character of the money, goods or property. Franklin v. State, 66 Fla. 213, 63 So. 418; Winton v. State, 87 Fla. 104, 99 So. 249; Hart v. State, 92 Fla. 809, 110 So. 253. We think the information, while inartfully drawn, is sufficient to satisfy the.rules laid down above. It charges that the property had before then been stolen, and that the defendant did, at the time of com…
-
State v. Graham, 238 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 1970)…ven 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 in the exercise of their prerogative to determine credibility may convict on proof of possession d…
-
Hart v. State, 92 Fla. 809 (Fla. 1926)…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 evidence showing the essential fact and no evidence from which the existence of such essential fact m…
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
- Angus McDonald v. State, 56 Fla. 74 (Fla. 1908)
- Franklin v. State, 66 Fla. 213 (Fla. 1913)
- Minor v. State, 55 Fla. 90 (Fla. 1908)