ROBERT CARPENTER, 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 appellate court reversed a conviction because the jury was instructed that it could infer guilt from the unexplained possession of recently stolen property, which violates the defendant's right against self-incrimination. This ruling aligned with prior decisions from other Florida appellate districts.
Yes, a jury instruction that allows an inference of guilt from the unexplained possession of recently stolen property violates a defendant's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
“This case is not distinguishable, as the state suggests, because the defendant did answer some questions put to him by the arresting officers.”
Establishes that the defendant's partial cooperation did not waive the issue with the jury instruction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was convicted of larceny. The trial court instructed the jury that it could infer guilt from the unexplained possession of recently stol…
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 Possession Of Recently Stolen Property cases and more on FLexlaw
Prior to this court’s rulings in Gamble v. State, 210 So.2d 238 (1968); and Urquhart v. State, 211 So.2d 79 (1968) the court below declined to follow the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision in Young v. State, 203 So.2d 650 (1967). Our adoption of the Young ruling makes necessary a new trial for Carpenter without the seriously objectionable charge which in effect requires the defendant to testify against himself to avoid the jury’s inference of larceny from the unexplained possession of recently stolen property This case is not distinguishable, as the state suggests, because the defendant did answer some questions put to him by the arresting officers. The jury may draw inferences from possession as it may from other circumstantial evidence, but not from unexplained possession.
The record is otherwise free from error.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
LILES, C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
George v. Stone, 260 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)…re extensive citation. Even if the evidence as to a fact issue is undisputed, if such evidence is reasonably susceptible of conflicting inferences, summary judgment is inappropriate. E. g., Graff Enterprises v. Canal Insurance Company, Fla.App.1968, 213 So. 2d 738. In the instant case, the complaint alleged that the insured “became so mentally disturbed” that he did the acts as hereinabove described. Likewise, the evidence as to the actual shooting, while undisputed, is reasonably susceptible of conflicting…
-
Palmer v. State, 323 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)…ry on the inference of guilt is no longer constitutionally permissible. Accord, Gamble v. State, 210 So. 2d 238 (Fla.App.2d, 1968), cert. dism. Fla., 225 So. 2d 910 (Fla.1969); Urquhart v. State, 211 So. 2d 79 (Fla.App.2d, 1968); Carpenter v. State, 213 So. 2d 738 (Fla.App.2d, 1968), rev’d 222 [*617] So. 2d 194 (Fla.1969). Contra, Shaw v. State, 209 So. 2d 477 (Fla.App.1st, 1968), cert. dism. 218 So. 2d 168 (Fla.1968). The Supreme Court, over the dissent of three justices who wished to infer guilt from posse…
-
Osceola Cnty. v. Goodman, 276 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)…rly, Fla.App.1963, 155 So. 2d 649; Baskin v. Griffith, Fla.App.1961, 127 So. 2d 467; Pollock v. Kelly, Fla.App.1960, 125 So. 2d 109; Smith v. City of Daytona Beach, Fla.App.1960, 121 So. 2d 440; and Graff Enterprises v. Canal Ins. Co., Fla.App.1968, 213 So. 2d 738. Even where counsel stipulate for the use of summary judgment procedure [*211] (or both move for it as here) the stipulation is not binding on the court where the prerequisites for summary judgment are not met. Van Arsdale v. DiMil Land Co., Fla.App…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Urquhart v. State, 211 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
- Gamble v. State, 210 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
- Young v. State, 203 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)