JERRY GRAY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Jerry Gray was convicted of receiving and concealing stolen property. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed because the State failed to prove the alleged owner's identity as required—it proved a company name but not that G. G. Sirman actually owned the property, as charged in the information.
Yes. The State must prove ownership of the stolen property as specifically alleged in the information. Here, the State failed to meet its burden because it proved only that Tropical Awning, Shutter & Jalousie Co. owned the property, but not that G. G. Sirman owned it, as alleged.
“In order to sustain a conviction of receiving and concealing stolen property, must the ownership of the stolen property be alleged and proven?”
The central legal question presented by Gray on appeal regarding the requirement to prove ownership as alleged in the information.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGray was charged with receiving and concealing stolen property belonging to G. G. Sirman, doing business as Tropical Awning, Shutter and Jalousie Comp…
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 Ownership cases and more on FLexlaw
Jerry Gray, the appellant, was convicted in Broward County of the offense of receiving and concealing stolen property.
The information charged Gray with the offense of receiving and concealing stolen property of one, G. G. Sirman, doing business as Tropical Awning, Shutter and Jalousie Company of Miami. The appellant states this question:
“In order to sustain a conviction of receiving and concealing stolen property, must the ownership of the stolen property be alleged and proven?”
The appellee rephrases the question as follows:
“Whether or not the State proved the allegation of ownership of the stolen property which was proven to have been received by the appellant with full knowledge that it was stolen property?”
The State argues in its brief:
“At the outset the appellant under Point I of his brief argues the issue of whether or not the state must prove the ownership of the stolen property in a case of this nature. As support for that position the appellant cites the case of Palaez v. State, 107 Fla. 50, 144 So. 364. The state takes no issue with the contention that it must prove, as alleged in the information, the ownership of the stolen property received and/or concealed by the defendant in a case of this nature. However, it is the state’s contention that the allegation of ownership in this case was clearly and unequivocally established.”
The State then claims that the issue is simply whether the State proved that Tropical Awning, Shutter & Jalousie Co. of Miami owned the property that was stolen, as alleged in the information filed in this case.
The testimony of the witnesses was to the effect that ownership of the property was in Tropical Awning, Shutter & Jalousie sence of any testimony that the property was owned by G. G. Sirman or that Sir-Co. of Miami, but there was a complete ab-man was doing business as Tropical Awning, Shutter & Jalousie Co. of Miami.
The duty of the State was to prove not that Tropical Awning, Shutter & Jalousie Co. of Miami owned the property, but that G. G. Sirman owned the property. Since there is no evidence in the record showing the ownership of the property to be in G. *94G. Sirman, as alleged in the information, this case must be reversed for a new trial.
Reversed.
SHANNON, J., and GERALD, LYNN, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brown v. State, 111 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)…. Craig, * * * ” knowing the same to have been stolen. At the trial it developed from the state’s evidence that while Craig was lawfully in possession of the boat, he was not the owner. The defendant relies for reversal on the case of Gray v. State, 104 So. 2d 92, wherein this court reversed the conviction because the ownership of the property was not proven as alleged in the information. Apparently the question of lawful possession was not involved in that case. In the instant case the indictment alleges no…
-
McCLENDON v. State, 117 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)…al but find them to be without substantial merit. The judgment is accordingly affirmed. CARROLL, DONALD K., J., concurs. STURGIS, J., dissents. . Duncan v. State of Florida, 29 Fla. 439, 10 So. 815, 817. . Gray v. State of Florida, Fla.App.1958, 104 So. 2d 92, 93.…
-
LEO v. State, 345 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)…make proof of another’s ownership an essential element, but the court held: “[T]he statute impliedly contemplates that the ownership of the goods stolen shall be alleged and proven as alleged . . . 107 Fla. at 56, 144 So. at 366. In Gray v. State, 104 So. 2d 92 (Fla.2d DCA 1958), an information charged Gray knowingly received property stolen from “G. G. Sirman, doing business as Tropical Awning, Shutter and Jalousie Company of Miami,” but testimony showed “Tropical Awning, Shutter & Jalousie Co. of Miami o…
Authorities Cited
- Pelaez v. State, 107 Fla. 50 (Fla. 1932)