FRED HOWARD SEYMOUR, A/K/A FRED SEYMOUR, 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.
Affirmed conviction for receiving stolen property where trial court properly found sufficient evidence of the defendant's knowledge that property was stolen.
Knowledge that property is stolen, or facts that would put a person of ordinary intelligence and caution on inquiry, is a necessary ingredient of the offense of receiving stolen property.
[1] Knowledge that property is stolen, or facts sufficient to put a person of ordinary intelligence and caution on inquiry, is a necessary element of the offense of receiving…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was found guilty in a non-jury trial of buying, receiving or concealing stolen property in Dade County, Florida.…
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 Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Fred Howard Seymour, appeals from the judgment and sentence of the Criminal Court of Record for Dade County, Florida entered by the court after appellant was found guilty in a non-jury trial of buying, receiving or concealing stolen property.
Appellant contends that the trial court erred in finding him guilty because there was insufficient evidence adduced to support the conviction. We do not agree with appellant’s contention.
The necessary ingredient of the offense of receiving stolen property, knowing it to have been stolen, is knowledge on the receiver’s part at the time he receives the thing stolen, that the property is stolen, or of such fact as would put a person of ordinary intelligence and caution on inquiry.
The record shows that there was conflicting evidence; however, it is a fundamental principle that an appellate court does not sit as a trier of fact. Where there are conflicts in the evidence in a non-jury trial, it is within the province of the trial judge to reject any testimony he finds to be untrue and accept and rely upon that which he finds to be worthy of belief. Hoover v. State, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 95.
No reversible error having been made to appear, the judgment and sentence appealed are affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hutton v. State, 332 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)…H, JJ., concur. .As a result of this conviction, appellant’s probation was revoked and he was adjudicated guilty and sentenced in two other cases. Appeals were filed in all three cases, and all were consolidated into one cause. . Seymour v. State, 246 So. 2d 155 (3 Fla.App.1971), cert. den. 250 So. 2d 641 (Fla.1971). . Graham v. State, 238 So. 2d 618 (Fla.1970). . Smith v. State, 135 Fla. 835, 186 So. 203 (1939); McQueen v. State, 304 So. 2d 501 (4 Fla.App.1974), cert. den. 315 So. 2d 193 (Fla.1975). . G…
-
O'Sullivan v. State, 335 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…erty, knowing it to have been stolen, is knowledge on the receiver’s part at the time he receives the thing stolen, that the property is stolen, or of such fact as would put a person of ordinary intelligence and caution on inquiry. Seymour v. State, 246 So. 2d 155 (Fla.3d DCA 1971). It is fundamental that an appellate court does not sit as a trier of fact. Where there are conflicts in the evidence in a non-jury trial, it is within the province of the trial judge to reject any testimony he finds to be untrue…
-
Richardson v. State, 345 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…receiver’s part at the time that he receives the thing stolen that the property is stolen, or of such fact as would put a person of ordinary intelligence and caution on inquiry. Hayward v. State, 152 Fla. 608, 12 So. 2d 458 (1943); Seymour v. State, 246 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). The appellant conceived that the instruction was not worded properly, it was necessary for him to object to the instruction. See Dorminey v. State, 314 So. 2d 134 (Fla.1975). This was not done in this case. Appellant’s point dir…
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
- Hoover v. State, 212 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)