N. STEPHENSON AND B. BIKE, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed the conviction of two merchants for receiving stolen cigarettes, finding the evidence insufficient to prove the defendants knew the property was stolen or had reason to suspect it was. The case establishes that knowledge of theft or suspicious circumstances must be proven to a degree excluding reasonable doubt for conviction on receiving stolen property charges.
The conviction was reversed because the evidence was insufficient to establish the defendants' guilty knowledge of the stolen nature of the cigarettes. Merely possessing goods of the same description as stolen merchandise, combined with a plausible explanation for their possession, does not constitute sufficient proof of guilt when other suspicious circumstances cannot exclude all reasonable theories inconsistent with guilt.
“It is essential to a conviction for receiving stolen property that the evidence shall show to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge that the property in question was stolen at the time he received it, or that the circumstances of the transaction were sufficiently suspicious to put a person of ordinary intelligence and caution upon inquiry.”
Establishes the required evidentiary standard for receiving stolen property convictions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendants Stephenson and Bike were accused of receiving and buying twenty-one packages of cigarettes (valued at fifteen cents per package) knowing th…
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
Ellis, J.
The plaintiffs in error were informed against in the Criminal Court of Record for Duval County for having, receiving and buying certain stolen property, knowing the same to have been stolen. The goods alleged to have Been received by the defendants consisted ’of twenty-one packages of cigarettes of the value 'of fifteen cents per package.
The defendants were convicted of the offense charged and brought a writ of error. The errors assigned and argued are that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict and that the court erred in all its charges to the jury.
The first assignment is well taken. It is essential to a conviction for receiving stolen property that the evidence shall show to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge that the property in question was stolen at the time he received it, or that the circumstances of the transaction were sufficiently suspicious to put a person of ordinary intelligence and caution upon inquiry. See Minor v. State, 55 Fla. 90, 45 South. Rep. 818; Franklin v. State, 66 Fla. 213, 63 South. Rep. 418; Worster v. State, 82 Fla. 463, 90 South. Rep. 188; Knowles v. State, 86 Fla. 270, 97 South. Rep. 716.
When a necessary element of an offense charged is not established by the degree of proof sufficient to convict, a verdict of guilty should be set aside. See McDonald v. State, 56 Fla. 74, 47 South. Rep. 485; Baker v. State, 54 Fla. 12, 44 South. Rep. 719.
The evidence tended to show that cigarettes of the brand of those which were found in defendants’ possession were stolen from a warehouse and had the mark upon them of the Union News Company.
The defendant Stephenson is a merchant in Jacksonville and has been engaged in such vocation for several years. B. Bike was an employee. The goods which were stolen from the warehouse were contained in a large package, or box, which contained many smaller boxes or cartons and were the property of the Union News Company.
The mere fact that the defendants may have had in his possession a few packages of cigarettes for sale of the same description as those which were stolen, and which he said he purchased from a dealer to temporarily replenish his stock of cigarettes, is not sufficient to establish his guilt or that of his employee.
Other circumstances which appeared in the evidence may have been suspicious, but cannot be regarded as exclusive of any reasonable theory inconsistent with that of guilt.
Upon consideration of the entire case we think the ends of justice require a reversal of the judgment.
Judgment reversed.
West, C. J., and Whitfield, Browne and Terrell, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Graham, 238 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 1970)…ledge that the property in question was stolen at the time he received it, or that the circumstances of the transaction were sufficiently suspicious to put a person of ordinary intelligence and caution upon inquiry. Stephenson v. State, 89 Fla. 351, 104 So. 600 (1925). The Florida Court has adopted the rule that an inference of guilt may be drawn from the unexplained possession of recently stolen goods sufficient to support a verdict, and if an explanation be given, the jury must determine its reasonablen…
-
Broxson v. State, 99 Fla. 1187 (Fla. 1930)…es for consideration the only question as to whether the defendant knew that such property was stolen, or whether all the circumstances surrounding the transaction were sufficient to put him on notice and inquiry. In the case of Stephenson v. State, 89 Fla. 351, 104 So. R. 600, it was held that to sustain a conviction of one charged with receiving stolen property, the evidence must show that the accused had knowledge at the time he received it that the property in question was stolen or “that the.circumsta…
-
Lampley v. State, 214 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…sh a check, which he said he had just found, by impersonating the payee thereof. For the offense or offenses which that conduct may have amounted to, he was not charged. See Winton v. State, 87 Fla. 104, 99 So. 249; Stephenson v. State, 89 Fla. 351, 104 So. 600. We have not overlooked the proposition that where one charged with receiving stolen property is found in possession of recently stolen property that is a circumstance “which may be considered as showing a tendency toward guilt.” King v. State, 156…
Previewing 3 of 7 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)
- Knowles v. State, 86 Fla. 270 (Fla. 1923)
- Minor v. State, 55 Fla. 90 (Fla. 1908)
- Worster v. State, 82 Fla. 463 (Fla. 1921)
- Baker v. State, 54 Fla. 12 (Fla. 1907)