BILLY GILBERT, 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.
Conviction for possession of a stolen motor vehicle reversed because evidence was insufficient to prove the defendant knew or had reason to believe the vehicle was stolen.
Evidence is insufficient to support a conviction for possession of a stolen motor vehicle when the defendant was merely found asleep in the vehicle with no proof of knowledge that it was stolen or exercise of dominion over it.
[1] Possession of a stolen motor vehicle requires proof that the defendant knew or had reason to believe the vehicle was stolen; mere presence in the vehicle without dominion…
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 intelligence“One of the elements necessary for the proof of a prima facie case for the violation of this statute is that the defendant knew or had reason to believe that the motor vehicle was in fact stolen.”
Court explaining the required elements of the crime of possession of a stolen motor vehicle.
Appellant was found asleep inside a parked automobile near his home and claimed he had permission from a friend to sleep there. He disclaimed any know…
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 Prima Facie Case Elements cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was found guilty after a trial before the court without jury upon the charge of possession of a stolen motor vehicle in violation of Fla.Stat. § 814.03(2), F.S.A. The judgment and sentence must be reversed because the evidence is insufficient to support the judgment. One of the elements necessary for the proof of a prima facie case for the violation of this statute is that the defendant knew or had reason to believe that the motor vehicle was in fact stolen. See State v. Graham, Fla.1970, 238 So.2d 618. In the present instance, the evidence reveals without dispute that the appellant was found asleep inside the automobile. Upon being arrested, he disclaimed any knowledge of the fact that the motor vehicle was stolen, and stated that he was sleeping there because he had been granted permission to do so by one of his friends. The automobile was parked near appellant’s home, but there was no proof that he had exercised any dominion over it other than that he was sleeping therein. The evidence is insufficient under the holding in Driggers v. State, Fla. 1964, 164 So.2d 200.
The judgment and sentence are reversed, and the cause is remanded with directions to discharge the defendant.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
A. R. v. State, 393 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…oint trial and the evidence as to each appellant is the same. We reverse upon a holding that a prima facie case was not here presented. See Fisk v. State, 138 Fla. 815, 190 So. 10 (1939); State v. Graham, 238 So. 2d 618 (Fla.1970); Gilbert v. State, 270 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); J. O. and R. G. v. State, 384 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). The State urges that the adjudications ought to be affirmed upon a holding that the circumstances were such that the possession of recently stolen property was not sa…
-
McQUEEN v. State, 304 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)…orpus delicti of this crime does not however include even this. There is simply nothing criminal at all merely to be in possession or to dispose of property which happens to have been stolen. Williams v. State, supra; Gilbert v. State, Fla.App.1972, 270 So. 2d 750. And by the very terms of F.S. § 811.16 which states that “Whoever buys, receives or aids in the concealment of stolen money, goods or property, knowing the same to have been stolen, shall be guilty of a felony . ,” [emphasis supplied] it is plain…
-
Nozza v. State, 288 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…fendant’s guilt; it must also be inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Lyons v. State, Fla.1950, 47 So. 2d 541; Davis v. State, Fla.1956, 90 So. 2d 629; Driggers v. State, Fla.1964, 164 So. 2d 200; Gilbert v. State, Fla.App.1972, 270 So. 2d 750. Measured by this standard, I do not believe that the state has established a prima facie case of manslaughter against the appellant because a causal connection between appellant’s alleged criminal conduct and the death of her child, Dean Nozza, ha…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Graham, 238 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 1970)
- Zenchak v. Ryder Truck Rentals, Inc., 164 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 1964)
- Green Driggers v. State, 164 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 1964)