T. W. FORREST, ALIAS BIG BOY FORREST,
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 receiving stolen property, holding that a jury instruction regarding the defendant's knowledge of stolen goods was not reversible error when considered with other instructions, despite potential criticism when viewed in isolation.
No, the trial court did not commit reversible error by giving the challenged jury instruction, because when considered with all other instructions, it did not result in a miscarriage of justice.
“In this connection the Court also charges you that tfie defendant would not have had to have known as an actual fact that the property was stolen property but the State would only have to have proven to your minds beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt that the circumstances or knowledge which he possessed at the time concerning the carcass of the calf was such as to have-put an ordinarily prudent man on inquiry so that if he had followed up the inquiry he would have found out that the calf was stolen property.”
This quote is the challenged jury instruction regarding the defendant's knowledge of stolen property.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was convicted of receiving stolen property. A key issue on appeal was a jury instruction stating that the defendant did not need actual …
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 Miscarriage Of Justice Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
—Mr. Justice Brown has prepared an opinion in this case in which he has discussed all the material questions presented here for our consideration. Therefore, .we feel that it is not necessary to discuss any matter except that which involves the charge given by the Court, as follows:
“In this connection the Court also charges you that tfie defendant would not have had to have known as an actual fact that the property was stolen property but the State would only have to have proven to your minds beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt that the circumstances or knowledge which he possessed at the time concerning the carcass of the calf was such as to have-put an ordinarily prudent man on inquiry so that if he had followed up the inquiry he would have found out that the calf was stolen property.”
We cannot agree with the conclusion that the giving of this charge, when the same is considered with other charges *312given by the Court, constituted reversible error. While the charge standing alone' might warrant adverse criticism, when taken together with other charges given by the Court, we cannot say, that after an examination of the entire casé it appears that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice and, therefore, under the provisions of Section 2812 R. G. S., 4499 C. G. L., we should not now reverse the judgment under review. 'In other respects we concur in the opinion prepared by Mr. Justice Brown herein!
The judgment should be affirmed and it is so ordered.
Affirmed.
• Whitfield, Terrell, Buford and Chapman, T. J., concur.
Brown, J., dissents in part.
Petition for Rehearing
—In petition for rehearing our attention is called to the fact that the judgment rendered and entered as shown by the record here-is like that which was held to be fatally defective in the case of Hamilton v. State, 129 Fla. 219, 176 So. 89, for which reason the said judgment must be reversed and the defendant must be remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of Hardee County, who shall jiresent the said defendant, plaintiff in error here, at the bar of the Circuit Court in and for Hardee County, Florida, at the next regular Term thereof to receive judgment and sentence according to law based on the verdict heretofore rendered, as is shown by the transcript of the record in this cause.
So ordered.
Reversed for legal judgment and sentence.
Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield, Buford and Chapman, J. J., concur.
*313Brown, J., concurs in part and dissents in part.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).— I concur in holding that the judgment is defective, but for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion on the original hearing, I think the judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted.
Petition for Rehearing
Per Curiam.
—In petition for rehearing our attention is called to the fact that the judgment rendered and entered as shown by the record here-is like that which was held to be fatally defective in the case of Hamilton v. State, 129 Fla. 219, 176 So. 89, for which reason the said judgment must be reversed and the defendant must be remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of Hardee County, who shall jiresent the said defendant, plaintiff in error here, at the bar of the Circuit Court in and for Hardee County, Florida, at the next regular Term thereof to receive judgment and sentence according to law based on the verdict heretofore rendered, as is shown by the transcript of the record in this cause.
So ordered.
Reversed for legal judgment and sentence.
Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield, Buford and Chapman, J. J., concur. Brown, J., concurs in part and dissents in part.
Brown, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).— I concur in holding that the judgment is defective, but for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion on the original hearing, I think the judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stanley v. State, 357 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…a whole, and even if an isolated passage might be error if standing by itself, that alone is not a sufficient ground for reversal. See Boyd v. United States, 271 U.S. 104, [*1034] 107, 46 S.Ct. 442, 70 L.Ed. 857 (1926); and compare Forrest v. State, 133 Fla. 310, 182 So. 849, 853 (1938). Therefore, we hold that the giving of the instruction complained of, if error, was not fundamental error so as to warrant reversal of Stanley’s conviction absent a timely objection at trial. Stanley has raised six other po…
-
Barket v. State, 356 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 1978)…ledge that goods in his possession were stolen is considered with all other instructions given to the jury relative to the state’s burden of proof, we cannot say that there is error which requires a reversal of Barket’s conviction. Forrest v. State, 133 Fla. 310, 182 So. 849 (1938). The certified question is answered accordingly, and the decision of the district court is affirmed.3 OVERTON, C. J., and BOYD, ENGLAND and HATCHETT, JJ., concur. ADKINS, J., dissents. .The challenged portion of the jury instr…
-
Barket v. State, 342 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)…5 Fla. 90, 45 So. 818 (1908); Franklin v. State, 66 Fla. 213, 63 So. 418 (1913); Winton v. State, 87 Fla. 104, 99 So. 249 (1924); Stephenson v. State, 89 Fla. 351, 104 So. 600 (1925); Hart v. State, 92 Fla. 809, 110 So. 253 (1926); Forrest v. State, 133 Fla. 310, 182 So. 849 (1938); State v. Graham, 238 So. 2d 618 (Fla.1970). Justice Armstead Brown in his dissenting opinion in Forrest v. State, supra, in discussing a similar instruction given there, gave considerable support to appellant’s argument here. Th…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Augusta Hamilton v. State, 129 Fla. 219 (Fla. 1937)