CLEVE THOMPSON
v.
STATE
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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed a conviction for breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny, holding that unexplained possession of recently stolen property can support an inference of guilt.
Yes, the unexplained possession of recently stolen property may warrant a jury's inference of guilt for breaking and entering with intent to steal, provided the jury was not influenced by considerations other than the evidence.
“Where it is shown that a building has been entered and property, stolen, therefrom, and soon thereafter the property is found in the possession of the person charged with entering the building with intent to steal, such possession unexplained may warrant the jury to infer guilt of the crime of entering the building with intent to steal.”
Establishes the principle that unexplained possession of recently stolen property can support an inference of guilt.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff in error was convicted of unlawfully and feloniously breaking and entering a store building with the intent to commit grand larceny. The…
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 Breaking And Entering With Intent To Commit Grand Larceny cases and more on FLexlaw
— Plaintiff in error took writ of error-to a judgment of conviction and sentence to imprisonment in the State penitentiary, upon an information charging that the accused did “unlawfully and feloniously break and enter” a “store building * * * with intent to commit a felony therein, to-wit Grand Larceny.”
“Where it is shown that a building has been entered and property, stolen, therefrom, and soon thereafter the property is found in the possession of the person charged with entering the building with intent to steal, such possession unexplained may warrant the jury to infer guilt of the crime of entering the building with intent to steal. The guilt of the accused does not follow as a presumption or conclusion of law from the unexplained possession of property recently stolen, but an inference of guilt as a matter of fact may be drawn therefrom by the jury to be considered by them in connection with the other evidence.”
“Where there is testimony from which the jury might legally have inferred all the essential elements of the crime charged, and it does not appear that the jury were influ*251enced by considerations other than the evidence, a verdict of guilty will not be disturbed.” Thompson v. State, 58 Fla. 106, 50 So. 507.
There is evidence legally insufficient to sustain the verdict and there is nothing to indicate that the jury were not governed by the evidence adduced.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, C. J., and Ellis, Terrell, Brown, Buford, and Davis, J. J., concur.
(concurring). — Plaintiff in error contends that this case should be reversed on authority of Kilkrease v. State, 96 Fla. 264, 117 So. 862, but the evidence here does not quite measure up to that in the Kilcrease case, and would not authorize us in reversing the verdict and judgment.
Brown, J.
(concurring). — Plaintiff in error contends that this case should be reversed on authority of Kilkrease v. State, 96 Fla. 264, 117 So. 862, but the evidence here does not quite measure up to that in the Kilcrease case, and would not authorize us in reversing the verdict and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brooks v. City of Jacksonville, 127 Fla. 564 (Fla. 1937)…liams v. Town of Dunnellon, 125 Fla. 114, 169 Sou. Rep. 631; Taachy v. City of Wauchula, 125 Fla. 150, 169 Sou. Rep. 640; Voorhees v. City of Moore Haven, 125 Fla. 149, 169 Sou. Rep 641; State, ex rel. City of Vero Beach v. MacConnell, 125 Fla. 251, 169 Sou. Rep. 657; Roach v. City of Tampa, 125 Fla. 62, 169 Sou. Rep. 627; State, ex rel. City of Sarasota, v. Richards, 125 Fla. 145, 169 Spu. Rep. 643; Taylor v. City of Miami, 125 Fla. 144, 169 Sou. Rep. 644; Boynton v. City of Safety Harbor, 125 Fla. 143, 169 Sou…
-
Bland Waters and Hamp Andrews, JR. v. State, 158 Fla. 456 (Fla. 1947)…[*457] PER CURIAM The judgment is affirmed on authority of Thompson v. State, 58 Fla. 106, 50 So. 507, and authorities there cited. See also Edge v. State, 96 Fla. 796, 119 So. 332; Thompson v. State, 165 Fla. 250, 169 So. 657. So ordered. THOMAS, C. J., BUFORD, ADAMS and BARNS, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Kilkrease v. State, 96 Fla. 264 (Fla. 1928)
- Thompson v. State, 58 Fla. 106 (Fla. 1909)