DIONYSIUS BARTON, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
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 circumstantial evidence is sufficient to establish the identity of stolen property for a jury's determination.
The appellant was convicted of grand larceny after a jury found him guilty. The conviction was based on circumstantial evidence linking the stolen ove…
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 Grand Larceny cases and more on FLexlaw
BOARDMAN, Judge.
The appellant, Dionysius Barton, Jr., was charged by information with grand larceny. A jury trial resulted in a verdict of guilty and the appellant was sentenced to a term of five years. This timely appeal followed.
The appellant contends that the oven introduced into evidence was not positively identified as the one stolen. Consequently, he contends the state failed to prove its case against him. As authority for his position, appellant relies on Carson v. State, Fla.App.3d, 1967, 205 So. 2d 340.
We are of the opinion that Carson, supra, is not on point. In Carson, the state “. . . completely failed. .” to show that the property identified as stolen was the same property that was found in the appellant’s possession. In the case sub judice there was a strong chain of circumstantial evidence indicating that the property that was stolen was the same property appellant had in his possession. It is well established that identity of stolen property may be determined by the jury from circumstantial evidence. McDonald v. State, 56 Fla. 74, 47 So. 485 (1908); Thompson v. State, 58 Fla. 106, 50 So. 507 (1909); Kearson v. State, 123 Fla. 324, 166 So. 832 (1936). Accordingly, we find no error. Affirmed.
McNULTY, C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dionysius Barton, Jr. v. State, 314 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 1975)…Certiorari denied. 302 So. 2d 799. ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, BOYD, OVERTON and ENGLAND, JJ., concur.…
-
K.C. v. State, 506 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Barton v. State, 302 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 314 So. 2d 584 (Fla.1975).…
-
Shaffer v. State, 753 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…llant pawned was the same property taken from the victim. However, we conclude that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence presented that linked the stolen property to the victim and to the appellant to survive the motion. See Barton v. State, 302 So. 2d 799, 799 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)(“[i]t is well established that identity of stolen property may be determined by the jury from circumstantial evidence”) (citations omitted); see also State v. Fort, 380 So. 2d 534, 536 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). As to appellant’s…
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
- Angus McDonald v. State, 56 Fla. 74 (Fla. 1908)
- Kearson v. State, 123 Fla. 324 (Fla. 1936)
- Thompson v. State, 58 Fla. 106 (Fla. 1909)
- Jones v. Broward Cnty., 205 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)