RALPH BENZIO AMOROSO, 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.
Defendant's conviction for buying and receiving stolen property was reversed because the evidence showed he was a principal in the larceny itself, not merely a receiver of stolen goods, and he could not be convicted of receiving property he helped steal.
A person who participates as a principal in a larceny cannot be convicted of buying and receiving stolen property for returning items taken during that same larceny.
[1] A principal participant in a larceny cannot be convicted of the separate offense of buying and receiving stolen property for returning items taken during that same larcen…
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 intelligenceDefendant and several others participated in a larceny at a house where they had been invited by the victim's son. Defendant was the only one located …
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 Accessory Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was found guilty of buying and receiving stolen property and was sentenced to six months in the county jail to be followed by a period of probation. The undisputed facts as they appear in the record are that the defendant and several other young persons participated in a larceny. They were friends of the victim’s son and had been invited to the house by the son. After the larceny, the only one of the group who could be located was the defendant. He returned a portion of the property which he admitted taking. Later he returned other property as to which he admitted, “I know who took it.” Upon this statement of facts, he was found guilty of buying, receiving, or concealing the stolen article which was last returned.
The only reasonable conclusion from the evidence is that the appellant was a principal in the larceny even though he was not the thief who actually took the last piece of jewelry from the house. Under these circumstances his crime cannot be converted to buying and receiving stolen property because the fact is that he returned more than he himself actually carried away. Cf. Adams v. State, 60 Fla. 1, 53 So. 451 (1910); Ketelsen v. State, Fla.App.1968, 211 So.2d 853.
Reversed and remanded with directions to discharge the appellant.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Coleen Anita Ketelsen v. State, 211 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Adams v. State, 60 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1910)