GERALD DAVID YANKS, 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 the evidence was sufficient to prove the appellant's knowledge that the property was stolen, and that the prosecutor's argument and jury charge did not constitute reversible error.
The appellant was convicted by a jury of buying, receiving, and concealing stolen property and sentenced to five years in prison. He appealed the conv…
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 Prosecutorial Misconduct cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was tried before a jury and found guilty of buying, receiving, and concealing stolen property. He was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to five years in the state penitentiary. On this appeal he argues: (1) that the evidence is insufficient to prove that he knew the property was stolen when he purchased it; (2) that the prosecutor created prejudicial error in his argument before the jury; and, (3) that the charge of the court was confusing and misleading.
We have reviewed the record and find that the evidence of appellant’s knowledge of the fact that the articles he purchased were stolen was sufficiently established by the testimony before the jury. See Schuster v. State, Fla.App.1970, 235 So.2d 30; and People v. Schroeder (1968), 264 Cal.App.2d 217, 70 Cal.Rptr. 491.
Appellant’s second point is directed to the language of the prosecutor and does not present reversible error. Collins v. State, Fla.1965, 180 So.2d 340; Whitney v. State, Fla.1961, 132 So.2d 599; Goddard v. State, 143 Fla. 28, 196 So. 596 (1940); and Hamrick v. State, Fla.App.1970, 235 So.2d 360. We have reviewed the charge to the jury and find that it cannot reasonably be said to be confusing. A reviewing *534court will look to the entire charge rather than to one statement out of context in determining whether a charge to the jury is error. Mathews v. State, Fla.App. 1969, 221 So.2d 431.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Yanks v. State, 273 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…that conviction but did not assign as error or argue the challenge to the manner of selection of the jury. This court subsequently affirmed the conviction of appellant and certiorari was denied by our Supreme Court. See Yanks v. State, Fla.App.1972, 261 So. 2d 533, cert. denied, Fla.1972, 266 So. 2d 673. Appellant now seeks by means of CrPR 3.850 and appeal from a denial thereof to have this court review a point that was before the trial court and could have been raised in appellant’s direct appeal. It has l…
-
Yanks v. State, 266 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 1972)…Certiorari denied. 261 So. 2d 533. ERVIN, Acting C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.…
-
Perry v. State, 479 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…that no error has been demonstrated. See Olive v. State, 131 Fla. 548, 179 So. 811 (1938); Stanley v. State, 357 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 364 So. 2d 891 (Fla.1978); Waters v. State, 298 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); Yanks v. State, 261 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 266 So. 2d 673 (Fla.1972); Mathews v. State, 221 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969). Therefore, the conviction and sentences are affirmed. Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Goddard v. State, 143 Fla. 28 (Fla. 1940)
- Collins v. State, 180 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 1965)
- Whitney v. State, 132 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 1961)
- Mathews v. State, 221 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
- Hamrick v. State, 235 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- Schuster v. State, 235 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)