WILLIE JAMES MORGAN, 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.
Willie James Morgan was convicted of automobile larceny following a non-jury trial. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed his conviction, finding that the State failed to establish a prima facie case by presenting insufficient evidence connecting the automobile found in Morgan's possession to the specific stolen vehicle.
The conviction is reversed because the State failed to establish a prima facie case of larceny of an automobile. The evidence of identity of the automobile found in the accused's possession was not connected by competent evidence to the identity of the stolen automobile, and therefore was legally insufficient to support the judgment and sentence.
“The burden was on the State to prove every essential element of the crime charged (Larceny) beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Establishes the foundational burden of proof required for conviction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA 1961 brown Chevrolet belonging to Marian Streifert was discovered missing from the Miami Typesetting Company between February 18-23, 1965. Officer B…
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 Prima Facie Case cases and more on FLexlaw
Willie James Morgan, defendant below, appeals from the judgment and sentence entered finding him guilty of larceny of automobile following a non-jury trial. At the close of the State’s case, the appellant moved for a directed verdict of acquittal, and renewed his motion for a directed verdict thereafter. The motions were denied, and he was sentenced to serve five years in the State Penitentiary.
The facts, generally, are that sometime between February 18, 1965, and February 23, 1965, a 1961 brown, 4-door Chevrolet belonging to Marian Streifert was discovered *796missing from the Miami Typesetting Company, Miami, Florida. The record does not disclose when Officer Robert Boyd of the City of Miami Police Department stopped the defendant, who was driving an automobile in the vicinity of Northwest 3rd Court and 2nd Terrace in the City of Miami, to check * * * “a reported stolen car, similar to the one I was looking for, * * * ” While Officer Boyd checked the car the driver identified as the defendant fled. At the City of Miami Car Pound a car was checked by Officer T. A. Rice and was found to have the same serial number as the car reported stolen from Marian Streifert.
The defendant contends that the State failed to establish a prima facie case of larceny of an automobile as charged in the information because there is no identity as to time the defendant was stopped with an automobile, nor was there any competent evidence that the car identified as stolen was the same car in possession of the defendant.
A careful review of the transcript shows that there is no evidence as to the description or identity of the car which the defendant possessed and was stopped by Officer Boyd, nor is there any testimony at the aforesaid time that the described car had been stolen. The record failed to show that the car identified by Officer T. A. Rice and Marian Streifert as stolen was the same car found in the possession of the defendant.
The burden was on the State to prove every essential element of the crime charged (Larceny) beyond a reasonable doubt.
The evidence of identity of the automobile, which was found in the possession of the accused, is not connected by competent evidence to the identity of the stolen automobile or that defendant was in possession of a stolen car, and, we think, legally insufficient to support a judgment and sentence. See Smith v. State, 1939, 139 Fla. 558, 190 So. 696.
For these reasons, the judgment and con'-viction of the defendant, Willie James Morgan, for larceny of automobile is reversed and the defendant discharged from-this cause.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Coyle v. State, 493 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…that the vehicle in Coyle’s possession was the same as the vehicle taken from Houser. There is a missing link because there is no evidence to connect the car the police returned to Houser and the car found in Coyle’s possession. See Morgan v. State, 186 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). The Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution compels us to remand this case with instructions to the trial court to discharge the appellant because the State failed to present sufficient evidence at trial that t…
-
Ackerman v. State, 292 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…r until appellant and a second man emerged. The officers then permitted appellant to drive the car away from the motel, after which appellant was stopped and arrested. We find this case to be distinguished from Morgan v. State, Fla.App. [*435] 1966, 186 So. 2d 795, relied upon by appellant. . Appellant’s final point challenges his conviction for aggravated assault resulting from a subsequent arrest. Our review of the record indicates that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction. See Bass v. Sta…
-
Carson v. State, 205 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…s the one that was stolen from him, but the State completely failed to show that the motorcycle identified at Opa Locka was the one found in appellant’s possession. See Smith v. State, 139 Fla. 558, 190 So. 696 (1939); Morgan v. State, Fla.App.1966, 186 So. 2d 795. It being apparent that the State has failed to prove a prima facie case, the Court erred in failing to direct a verdict for the defendant. The judgment is therefore reversed. Reversed.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Elzie Smith v. State, 139 Fla. 558 (Fla. 1939)