HERBERT RAYMOND BRIDGES, 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.
Bridges was convicted of receiving or concealing stolen property and sentenced to five years imprisonment. On appeal, he challenged the sufficiency of evidence regarding the element of knowledge and claimed the jury instruction on circumstantial evidence was inadequate, but the appellate court affirmed his conviction.
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the guilty verdict was supported by the record, the element of knowledge was adequately established by circumstantial evidence, and the jury instruction on circumstantial evidence was adequate and proper when read in context with the other jury charges.
“The finding of guilt is supported by the record, and the necessary element of knowledge on the part of the defendant was adequately established by circumstantial evidence.”
Establishes that the appellate court found sufficient evidentiary support for the conviction despite defendant's argument to the contrary.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Bridges was charged with breaking and entering, grand larceny, and receiving or concealing stolen property. He was tried before a jury and f…
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 Reasonable Doubt cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant was informed against, charged with breaking and entering, grand larceny and receiving or concealing stolen property. He was tried before a jury and found guilty of the last mentioned offense, and was sentenced to confinement for a period of five years.
Two contentions are made by the appellant; one is that the court should have granted a directed verdict, contending the element of knowledge by the defendant was without evidentiary support in the record; the other related to charges, under which it was argued that the charge as to circumstantial evidence was not adequate or proper.
No useful purpose could be served by detailing the evidence. The finding of guilt is supported by the record, and the necessary element of knowledge on the part of the defendant was adequately established by circumstantial evidence.
Appellant argues that the trial judge in charging the jury made eight separate references to the requirement that the proof should be beyond and to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt, but gave only a single charge with reference to circumstantial evidence. The latter charge was, however, adequate.1 On reading the charges as a whole we must conclude that the appellant’s contention with reference thereto is without merit.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Goin v. Comm'n ON Ethics, 658 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…e. Consideration of the factual matters set out above certainly supports a conclusion that such was the case in the present matter. Proof of knowledge or intent by circumstantial evidence is widely allowed, even in criminal cases. Bridges v. State, 144 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962). In a drug possession prosecution, the government may prove the accused’s knowledge of the presence of drugs and ability to maintain control over the premises by presenting evidence of actual knowledge or evidence of incriminating…