RICHARD EARL LEWIS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE; DAVID WALSH FAMIGLIETTI, APPELLANT, V. THE 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.
Two defendants were convicted of automobile larceny based on circumstantial evidence showing they were found in a garage with a stolen car shortly after the theft occurred. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding the state failed to establish the defendants' exclusive possession of the stolen vehicle or exclude other innocent explanations for their presence.
The convictions are reversed and remanded for a new trial because the state failed to present sufficient evidence to sustain the verdicts. While exclusive possession of stolen property soon after a theft can shift the burden to a defendant to explain his possession, the state here only showed the defendants were in proximity to the stolen vehicle under suspicious circumstances without establishing exclusive possession or excluding innocent explanations for their presence.
“exclusive possession of stolen property by a defendant soon after a theft is sufficient, when standing alone, to place upon the accused the burden of an explanation, and if he fails to do so, to warrant the jury in convicting him of larceny”
Establishes the legal standard for circumstantial evidence in larceny cases based on possession
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn October 31, 1964, at approximately 9:40 P.M., police officers arrived at Allbritton Garage and found the lights on but then extinguished. Officer L…
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 Burden Of Explanation cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendants were tried and convicted of larceny of an automobile. Defendant, ' Lewis, was sentenced to serve five years and defendant, Famiglietti, to serve one year in the state penitentiary. In this consolidated appeal, the defendants appeal from these judgments and assign as error the insufficiency of the evidence to support the ■verdict and judgment.
The evidence shows that the defendants were apprehended by police officers in a ■ building identified as Allbritton Garage. •When the officers drove up to the garage, at approximately 9:40 P.M. on October 31, 1964, the lights therein were on but as they arrived the lights when off. An officer testified that he looked through a window in the garage and with the aid of a flashlight spotted a person, later identified as Lewis, walking through the garage area. The officer yelled, “Police, Stop” but Lewis continued through a door out of the garage area. Lewis was apprehended under a bed in a room adjoining the garage area, and Famiglietti was found under a car in the garage. The officer who testified was unable to state under which of the two cars in the garage he was found. It was subsequently ascertained that one of these cars had been stolen on the same night between the hours of 8:00 P.M. and 10:00 P.M.
As shown above, the evidence upon which the convictions are based is entirely circumstantial. However, exclusive possession of stolen property by a defendant soon after a theft is sufficient, when standing alone, to place upon the accused the burden of an explanation, and if he fails to do so, to warrant the jury in convicting him of larceny.1
The defendants in this action offered no evidence and elected not to testify in their own behalf. Thus, if the State has maintained its burden of showing no more than prima facie evidence of guilt it will be sufficient to sustain the verdict of the jury. We are unable to conclude from the evidence on the record that the State has maintained this burden.
The evidence does reveal that an automobile was stolen and soon thereafter it was located in a garage at the same time that the defendants were apprehended while apparently attempting to escape detection. The evidence does not sufficiently show that these defendants had exclusive possession of the stolen property. The State did not attempt to prove who owned the garage in which the automobile was located nor if the defendants were there without the owner’s permission which would preclude all other possibilities. The officer who apprehended Famiglietti under one of the automobiles was unable to testify and, therefore, the closest the State was able to place the defendants was in the near proximity of the stolen automobile under suspicious circumstances.
We are convinced that the interest of justice would best be served by the granting of a new trial. Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Frazier v. State, 287 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)…g on guilt there was the circumstance that the defendants were found in unexplained possession of recently stolen property. See Wethington v. State, 159 Fla. 670, 32 So. 2d 458 (1947); Solomon v. State, 145 So. 2d 492 (Fla.App.1962); Lewis v. State, 181 So. 2d 357 (Fla.App.1965). No reversible error having been shown, the judgments are affirmed. RAWLS, C. J., WIGGINTON, J., and CARROLL, CHARLES A-, Associate Judge, concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Harrison v. State, 104 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)
- Tilly v. State, 21 Fla. 242 (Fla. 1885)