JAMES A. LAWRENCE, 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.
The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the finding that the defendant had knowledge that the property was stolen.
The defendant purchased property that was conceded to be stolen. He was found guilty of unlawfully receiving stolen 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
James A. Lawrence appeals from a final judgment and sentence, after a non-jury trial, in which he was found guilty of unlawfully buying, receiving, or aiding in the concealment of stolen property.
By this appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the finding that he had knowledge of the fact that the property found in his possession was stolen.
It is conceded that the property in defendant’s possession was stolen property which he had purchased. He contends the evidence was insufficient to prove he knew or had knowledge of such facts that would amount to knowledge or notice that the property was actually stolen property.
We find that there was sufficient, competent and substantial evidence in this case which would put a man of ordinary intelligence and caution on inquiry, as to the fact that he was purchasing stolen property. Minor v. State, 55 Fla. 90, 45 So. 818 (1908).
The final judgment herein appealed must be and the same is, therefore,
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cannon v. State, 289 So. 2d 445 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)…ained possession of recently stolen property is not sufficient to show guilty knowledge, the circumstances surrounding the possession in this case were sufficient to make a prima facie case of the crime charged. Lawrence v. State, Fla.App.3rd, 1970, 230 So. 2d 160; McMichael v. State, Fla.App.3rd, 1972, 258 So. 2d 26; cf. State v. Graham, Fla.1970, 238 So. 2d 618. The general rule is that one who alone commits larceny cannot be adjudged guilty of receiving the thing stolen. Adams v. State, 1910, 60 Fla. 1, 5…
Authorities Cited
- Minor v. State, 55 Fla. 90 (Fla. 1908)