ANTHONIO PEREZ, 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.
Anthonio Perez appeals his conviction for buying, receiving, and concealing stolen goods. The appellate court affirmed his conviction, rejecting arguments that the state failed to establish corpus delicti, that his confession was improperly admitted, that evidence of additional stolen property was irrelevant and prejudicial, and that exhibits were products of unreasonable search and seizure.
The court held that: (1) the record contains sufficient competent evidence establishing ownership and that the goods were recently stolen, satisfying corpus delicti; (2) the confession was properly admitted given that corpus delicti was independently established; (3) evidence of additional stolen property was properly admitted as relevant to prove the element that the defendant knew the goods were stolen, and the trial judge appropriately limited the jury's consideration; and (4) no unreasonable search and seizure occurred.
“A study of the record reveals sufficient competent evidence to establish the ownership of the goods described in the information and the fact that they were recently stolen.”
Establishes that corpus delicti was independently proven by evidence other than the confession, satisfying the requirement announced in Hodges v. State.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePerez was charged with buying, receiving, and concealing stolen property belonging to a church. The state presented evidence of the church's ownership…
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 Stolen Goods cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant appeals a judgment and sentence which was entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of buying and receiving and concealing stolen goods. (Section 811.16, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.)
The first point urged is that the state has failed to establish that the Church’s property was stolen. The defendant then urges that the admission of his confession was error since the state had failed to prove the corpus delicti because of the foregoing. A study of the record re*398veals sufficient competent evidence to establish the ownership of the goods described in the information and the fact that they were recently stolen. See Guarino v. State, Fla.1953, 67 So.2d 650; Hunt v. State, Fla.App.1967, 200 So.2d 212; Duval v. State, Fla.App.1966, 190 So.2d 613. The corpus delicti was satisfactorily shown to allow the admission of the confession.
The defendant further urges that the trial court erred in allowing evidence of the defendant having stolen property in his possession which was in addition to that alleged in the information.
One of the necessary elements of proof in a charge under this statute is that the defendant knew that the goods in his possession were stolen, or that he should have known that fact. Hart v. State, 92 Fla. 809, 110 So. 253; Winton v. State, 87 Fla. 104, 99 So. 249. The state contended that the statements of the defendant concerning the additional stolen items, plus a display of them, was relevant to prove this element of the charge. The trial judge accepted this contention and the record discloses that he was quite careful in keeping evidence of other possible crimes within the rule of relevance, as outlined in Williams v. State, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 654.
An additional challenge to the introduction of the defendant’s statements and the exhibiting of some of this property was the fact that there was no direct evidence, other than the defendant’s statements, that all of this other property was stolen. We are well aware of the rule enunciated in Hodges v. State, Fla.1965, 176 So.2d 91 (reversing the opinion of this court in 169 So.2d 361.) that it is error to receive in evidence a confession or admission when the corpus delicti, that is, that the crime charged had been committed, could be established only by the confession or admission. In this case, the corpus delicti of the crime charged was proven. There was additional evidence, other than the statement of the defendant, that a portion of the other property was stolen. The trial judge, in his charge to the jury, was quite explicit in advising the jury the limited consideration they should give to this “other evidence”. Although great care by the trial judge to exclude improper portions of statements made by an accused must be exercised [Moseley v. State, Fla.1952, 60 So.2d 167; Hooper v. State, Fla.App. 1959, 115 So.2d 769; Minturn v. State, Fla.App.1962, 136 So.2d 359], no. error was committed in this instance by the trial judge.
The defendant also urges that some of the state’s exhibits were the product of an unreasonable search and seizure. The record discloses this is not true.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McQUEEN v. State, 304 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)…cti of the crime independent of the statement. Smith v. State, 135 Fla. 835, 186 So. 203 (1939); Jefferson v. State, Fla.1961, 128 So. 2d 132. The issue presented to us — one which is of first impression in Florida, cf. Perez v. State, Fla.App.1969, 220 So. 2d 397, and concerning which we have found no clear authority even elsewhere' — is whether the “corpus delicti” of this crime for purposes of permitting the introduction of a confession, as (perhaps) opposed to the elements required to establish guilt of t…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)
- Hart v. State, 92 Fla. 809 (Fla. 1926)
- Winton v. State, 87 Fla. 104 (Fla. 1924)
- Hodges v. State, 176 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 1965)
- Jackson Holloway Hooper v. State, 115 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- Hunt v. State, 200 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Minturn v. State, 136 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Guarino v. State, 67 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 1953)
- Duval v. State, 190 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- State v. Hodges, 169 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)