ROBERT SOLOMON, 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.
Robert Solomon appeals his conviction for grand larceny, challenging the sufficiency of evidence and jury instructions. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirms the conviction, finding no reversible error and that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict.
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury was the proper judge of alibi testimony, the trial court's instruction on inferring larcenous intent from recent exclusive possession was standard and proper, and the aggregate jury charges were fair and correct despite some being limited or repetitious.
“The jury, however, is proper judge as to whether the testimony of alibi witnesses raises a reasonable doubt that the accused could have committed the offense.”
Establishes that the jury's weighing of alibi testimony is within its prerogative and subject to limited appellate review.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobert Solomon was convicted of grand larceny. The defendant had recent, exclusive, and unexplained possession of stolen property. Direct evidence of …
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 Grand Larceny cases and more on FLexlaw
Robert Solomon appeals his conviction of grand larceny. It would serve no good purpose to detail the facts of the case. In essence the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to establish the elements of the offense charged, and he also protests several of the trial court’s instructions to the jury. A comprehensive review of the record discloses that these contentions are without merit.
It is urged that insufficient weight was given to the testimony of alibi witnesses. The jury, however, is proper judge as to whether the testimony of alibi witnesses raises a reasonable doubt that the accused could have committed the offense. Grizzard v. State, Fla.App.1962, 139 So.2d 161, 163; Jones v. State, Fla.App.1961, 128 So.2d 754.
Defendant further insists that the evidence as a whole was not sufficient to *493establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to the exclusion of every other reasonable hypothesis. Although some of the evidence was circumstantial in nature and there were evidentiary conflicts, there was direct evidence of defendant’s possession of the subject property and we are of the opinion that the conclusion reached by the jury was within its prerogative. See Grizzard v. State, supra; Hyman v. State, 1943, 152 Fla. 446, 12 So.2d 437.
It is submitted that the- trial court erred in charging the jury that a larcenous intent could be inferred from recent exclusive possession by the defendant. We have examined the entire instruction and find it to be a standard and proper charge on this point. Where possession of stolen property is fairly recent, exclusive and unexplained or unsatisfactorily explained, such circumstances raise a presumption that the possessor was the thief. See Cone v. State, Fla.1953, 69 So.2d 175. Such unexplained possession coupled with management of the stolen property gives rise to an inference or rebuttable presumption of larcenous intent and may be considered by the jury.
With reference to other instructions to the jury these in the main were attacked merely by “general exception to the instructions * * * Cf. Ward v. State, 1936, 123 Fla. 248, 168 So. 397; 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals, § 80. An appellate court generally will not reverse because a particular charge may be limited or repetitious where the aggregate charges are not misleading but are, on the whole, fair and correct. Such is the situation here. The defendant’s fifth point on appeal was not objected to nor covered by assignment of error. The defendant on his appeal has demonstrated no reversible error. The record reveals an essentially fair trial.
Affirmed.
ALLEN, Acting C. J., and SMITH, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Crummie v. State, 204 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…dence. We have carefully reviewed the record, considered the oral arguments and briefs of the parties and concluded that no reversible error has been made to appear. See Wright v. State, Fla.App.1966, 182 So. 2d 264; Solomon v. State, Fla.App.1962, 145 So. 2d 492. Affirmed.…
-
Griffin v. State, 370 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)…t has been held to be limited by the further requirements that the possession be personal, that it involve a distinct and conscious assertion of possession by the accused, Presley [*862] v. State, (1912) 63 Fla. 37, 57 So. 605, and Solomon v. State, 145 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1962); and that the possession must be exclusive, Cone v. State, 69 So. 2d 175 (Fla.1953). Evidence of possession by Marshall, who was not on trial, of property recently stolen from Frazier would tend to identify Marshall as one of th…
-
Palmer v. State, 323 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)…. 881 (1888), and in the common law before Regina v. Langmead, 169 Eng.Rep. 1459 (Cr. Cas.1864). Appellant argues that no presumption of guilt could arise against him because he was not in exclusive possession of the stolen goods, Solomon v. State, 145 So. 2d 492 (Fla.App.2d, 1962), cert. den. Fla., 155 So. 2d 151 (1963), Cone v. State, 69 So. 2d 175 (Fla.1954), nor was his possession of the car and its contents, jointly with his passengers, accompanied by personal knowledge of the stolen goods and the abili…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cone v. State, 69 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 1953)
- Jones v. State, 128 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- Hyman v. State, 152 Fla. 446 (Fla. 1943)
- Ward v. State, 124 Fla. 113 (Fla. 1936)
- Lacey Moore v. State, 124 Fla. 332 (Fla. 1936)
- Grizzard v. State, 139 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Ward v. State, 123 Fla. 248 (Fla. 1936)