BENNY JOHN BORGHESE, A/K/A ROBERT B. LUDMAN, 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.
The unexplained possession of recently stolen property can sustain a larceny conviction.
Appellant was found in possession of a stolen automobile 103 days after its theft and subsequently sold it using a fake title and bill of sale. The ap…
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 Larceny Of An Automobile cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was tried and convicted of the offense of larceny of an automobile and appeals from the judgment and sentence.
The automobile in question was discovered parked in front of the appellant’s home approximately 103 days after its alleged' theft on October 19, 1962. Testimony was received at the non-jury trial that the appellant had commenced negotiations for the sale of the automobile to a third party sometime in January, 1963 and the sale was completed on February 1, 1963 when the appellant gave the purchaser a fake title certificate and bill of sale. The appellant admitted that he signed the name Robert B. Ludman to both documents and that his signature on the title certificate had been notarized.
*786We find that the law is well-settled that the unexplained or unsatisfactorily explained possession of recently stolen property may be sufficient to sustain a verdict of guilty upon a charge of larceny. The reasonableness of the accused’s explanation of his possession of recently stolen property, when he is charged with its theft, is a •question of fact to be considered by the jury, or judge in a non-jury trial, in connection with all other facts and circumstances submitted in the trial of the case.1
We have carefully reviewed the ■testimony and find that it supports the judgment and sentence. No reversible error having been made to appear, the judgment js hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Ridley v. State, 407 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…lanation of his possession of recently stolen property is a question of fact for the jury, or the judge in a non-jury trial, to be considered in connection with all other facts and circumstances submitted in the trial of the case. Borghese v. State, 158 So. 2d 785, 786 (Fla.3d DCA 1963). A trial judge is not bound, as a matter of law, to accept as true a defendant’s explanation of his possession of recently stolen property when tendered on a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4). State v…
-
Burroughs v. State, 221 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)…(Fla. 1953), 69 So. 2d 175, and Williams v. State (1898), 40 Fla. 480, 25 So. 143. Also while the point is not discussed therein, a conviction of auto theft based on the presumption was upheld after 103 days in Borghese v. State (Fla.App. 3d 1963), 158 So. 2d 785. . See, e. g. State v. Brightman (1961), 252 Iowa 1278, 110 N.W. 2d 315; and People v. Pride (1959), 16 Ill.2d 82, 156 N.E. 2d 551.…
-
R. A. L. v. State, 402 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…d; Schectman v. State, 220 So. 2d 657 (Fla.3d DCA 1969); see State v. Young, 217 So. 2d 567 (Fla.1968), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 853, 90 S.Ct. 112, 24 L.Ed.2d 101 (1969); compare Burroughs v. State, 221 So. 2d 159 (Fla.2d DCA 1969); Borghese v. State, 158 So. 2d 785 (Fla.3d DCA 1963). Reversed. . (2) Proof of possession of property recently stolen, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that the person in possession of the property knew or should have known that the property had been s…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bargesser v. State, 95 Fla. 401 (Fla. 1928)
- Park Tucker v. State, 86 Fla. 36 (Fla. 1923)
- Cone v. State, 69 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 1953)