N. K. YOUNIS
v.
STATE
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 a conviction for receiving stolen property, finding the evidence insufficient to prove the defendant's guilty knowledge.
No, the evidence was insufficient to prove the defendant's guilty knowledge that the property was stolen at the time he received it.
“The evidence was entirely insufficient to raise even a fair presumption of the guilt of the accused.”
Establishes the court's finding on the overall sufficiency of the evidence.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant, a merchant, was convicted of receiving stolen property. The State proved the watch was stolen and found in the defendant's possession o…
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 Concealing Stolen Property cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff in error was convicted in Criminal Court of Record of Dade County of the offense of knowingly receiving and concealing certain property which had been stolen from the owner, the accused knowing at the time he was alleged to have received and concealed the property that the same had been stolen and was then stolen property.
The record shows that the accused was a merchant and *697that it was his practice to accept jewelry and personal property in pledge for the payment of merchandise.
The State proved only that the property, a watch, was stolen from the owner on May 5, 1930, and was found in possession of the defendant on July 31, 1933.
The accused testified that he took the watch in pledge for merchandise and that he did not remember from whom or the date when he took it. But that when the watch was taken from his possession by the police officers it had attached thereto a slip on which was’ written the name of the person from whom he received it and the amount of the value of the merchandise for which it was pledged. This was not disputed.
The evidence was entirely insufficient to raise even a fair presumption of the guilt of the accused. There was no direct evidence nor any salient circumstances that tended to prove any guilty knowledge as to the watch being stolen property at the time accused received the same or at any time while it was in his possession.
The judgment should be reversed. It is so ordered.
Reversed.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield and Terrell, J. J., concur.