JOSEPH JAMES GRAHAM, 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.
Joseph Graham was convicted of buying, receiving, or concealing stolen property. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the State presented insufficient evidence of knowledge—mere possession of recently stolen property, without additional corroborating circumstances, does not satisfy the statutory requirement.
Mere unexplained possession of recently stolen property, without additional evidence of circumstances surrounding acquisition or other facts putting the defendant on notice of the property's character, does not meet the statutory knowledge requirement. However, unexplained possession of recently stolen property considering all circumstances may constitute a prima facie case. Here, Graham provided a reasonable explanation of purchase at a flea market, which the State failed to rebut, requiring that a directed verdict motion be granted.
“the mere unexplained possession of recently stolen property, without the introduction of any additional evidence of the circumstances surrounding either the acquisition of the property, the apprehension of the defendant, or some other facts or circumstances which would put the defendant on notice of the character of the property, etc., will not in and of itself meet the test of knowledge as required by § 811.16, Fla.Stat.”
Establishes the core holding that possession alone is insufficient; the State must prove knowledge of the property's stolen character through additional evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGraham was found in possession of recently stolen property, which he attempted to sell to the original owner. Graham claimed he purchased the property…
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 Knowledge Of Stolen Property cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, defendant in the Criminal Court of Record in and for Dade County, Florida, appeals an adverse jury' verdict, judgment of conviction, and sentence, after being charged with the crime of buying, receiving, or concealing stolen property knowing the same to have been stolen.
Several points have been preserved for review on appeal. We deem it necessary only to discuss the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to deny the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict at the conclusion of the. State’s case or at the conclusion of the entire proceedings. The only evidence presented by the State, in chief, to support the charge as contained in the information was that the defendant had recently stolen property in his possession, which he attempted to sell in a normal manner to the original owner thereof. There was no other evidence introduced on behalf of the State.
We hold that the mere unexplained possession of recently stolen property, without the introduction of any additional evidence of the circumstances surrounding either the acquisition of the property, the apprehension of the defendant, or some other facts or circumstances which would put the defendant on notice of the character of the property, etc., will not in and of itself meet the test of knowledge as required by § 811.16, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.1 This is not to say that there may not be cases wherein the unexplained possession of recently stolen property [considering all the circumstances] may constitute a prima facie case of the crime charged and warrant the submission of the question to the jury. We merely hold that under the evidence in the instant case the State failed to make a prima facie showing. In this connection, see the following: Minor v. State, 55 Fla. 90, 45 So. 818; Ard v. State, 156 Fla. 313, 22 So.2d 819; Anno. 68 A.L. R. 187.
Generally, the presumption arising from the unexplained possession of recently stolen property is that the possessor is guilty of the theft. 45 Am.Jur., Receiving Stolen Property, § 18, p. 405. To convict of receiving or concealing stolen property [knowing same to have been stolen] requires a different extent of proof. Minor v. State, supra. It further appears that the defendant gave a reasonable explanation of his purchase of the property in the normal course of his business at a flea market [regularly conducted in Dade County, Florida] and, with this reasonable explanation in the record, at least the defendant’s motion for directed verdict at the conclusion of all the evidence should have been granted under the authority of Schectman v. State, Fla.App.1969, 220 So.2d 657, when the explanation given by the defendant was not rebutted by the State.
Therefore, the verdict, adjudication and sentence be and the same is hereby set aside, with directions to discharge the defendant.
Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Graham, 238 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 1970)…ADKINS, Justice. By petition for certiorari, we have for review a decision of the Third District Court of Appeal (Graham v. State, 229 So. 2d 616), which allegedly conflicts with prior decisions of this Court (Ard v. State, 108 So. 2d 38; Tidwell v. State, 143 Fla. 397, 196 So. 837; Hayward v. State, 152 Fla. 608, 12 So. 2d 458) on the same point of law. Fla.Const., art. V, § 4, F.S.A. The r…
-
Taylor v. State, 241 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…tum of proof the essential element of knowledge, with reference to the offense of which the appellant was convicted. See Lampley v. State, Fla.App.1968, 214 So. 2d 515; Schectman v. State, Fla.App.1969, 220 So. 2d 657; Graham v. State, Fla.App.1969, 229 So. 2d 616. For the reason stated, the judgments of conviction on the counts of buying, receiving or aiding in the concealment of stolen property under the four informations are reversed, and the cause is remanded with direction to discharge the defendant. R…
-
Heath v. State, 382 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)…eath had possession of it and caused it to be cashed. There was no evidence, circumstantial or direct, of guilty knowledge. Possession of the recently stolen check did not give rise to a presumption that Heath uttered a forgery. See Graham v. State, 229 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969) and Taylor v. State, 241 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970). A conviction of uttering a forgery requires a different standard of proof than that required for conviction of the theft-related crimes. In Graham and Taylor, the courts conc…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Young, 217 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 1968)
- Minor v. State, 55 Fla. 90 (Fla. 1908)
- Burroughs v. State, 221 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
- Tess Ard v. State, 156 Fla. 313 (Fla. 1945)
- Schectman v. State, 220 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)