MILFORD GARNER
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 reversed a larceny conviction, holding that the State failed to disprove the defendant's credible explanation for possessing recently stolen property. The court found the evidence insufficient and reliant on guesswork, necessitating a new trial.
No, the State failed to meet its burden. The defendant's explanation was credible and corroborated, and the evidence presented by the State was insufficient to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
“When the defendant, found in possession of recently stolen property, gave a reasonable and credible explanation as to how he came into such possession, the burden was cast upon the State to prove that such explanation was untrue.”
Establishes the legal principle regarding the burden of proof when a defendant offers an explanation for possessing stolen goods.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMilford Garner was found in possession of seven hogs and claimed he had bought them from John Thornton. His testimony was corroborated by several witn…
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
Writ of error brings for review judgment of conviction of the offense of larceny of seven hogs.
Defendant in the court below was found in possession of the hogs and immediately explained that he had bought the hogs. He claimed that he bought the hogs from one John Thornton. His testimony was corroborated by some six witnesses. He also established by numerous witnesses *253that his reputation in the community where he lived for honesty and integrity was good.
When the defendant, found in possession of recently stolen property, gave a reasonable and credible explanation as to how he came into such possession, the burden was cast upon the State to prove that such explanation was untrue. Leslie v. State, 35 Fla. 171, 17 Sou. 555; Groom v. State, 83 Fla. 547, 92 Sou. 153.
Whether such explanation as is above referred to is a reasonable and credible one is a question for the jury to determine. Tucker v. State, 86 Fla. 36, 96 Sou. 10.
It is elementary that when the burden rests upon the State to prove any fact in a criminal prosecution it is required to prove that fact beyond every reasonable doubt.
We have carefully considered the record before us and we feel that proof of the guilt of the defendant is so unsatisfactory and that on the whole the jury was so largely required to resort to guesswork and suspicion as to who was and who was not speaking the truth that justice demands a reversal of the judgment and awarding a new trial.
The judgment is reversed.
So ordered.
Reversed.
Ellis, C. J., and Terrell, J., concur.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. State, 239 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)…This is such a case. Considered in isolation, the testimony of the prosecutrix is “sufficient.” Read in context with the rest of the record, the interests of justice demand a new trial. In a different factual setting, consider Garner v. State, 1938, 134 Fla. 252, 183 So. 739, a larceny case in which the defendant’s possession of recently stolen hogs was relied upon to support the conviction, but the Supreme Court granted a new trial because of testimony tending to show lawful possession. It leads us to our…1 / 2
-
Solis v. State, 262 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)…ERCE, C. J., and LILES, J., concur. . See, e. g., 7 Fla.Jur., Coram Nobis, § 15 at p. 311, 312. . See, e. g., O’Brien v. State (Fla.App.1968), 206 So. 2d 217. .See, e. g., Lowe v. State (1944), 154 Fla. 730, 19 So. 2d 106; Garner v. State (1938), 134 Fla. 252, 183 So. 739; and Fuller v. State (1926), 92 Fla. 873, 110 So. 528.…
-
Knight v. State, 217 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)…d v. State, 56 Fla. 74, 47 So. 485 (1908), the defendant explained the possession of a. twenty-dollar gold piece with a story about selling a horse and receiving the coin in payment. The jury didn’t believe him. Enough said. Compare Garner v. State, 134 Fla. 252, 183 So. 739 (1938), which illustrates the principle that the verdict must be supported by sufficient competent evidence or the appellate court will not let it stand. There the defendant, charged with larceny of seven hogs, immediately explained tha…
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
- Leslie v. State, 35 Fla. 171 (Fla. 1895)
- Park Tucker v. State, 86 Fla. 36 (Fla. 1923)
- Grooms v. State, 83 Fla. 547 (Fla. 1922)