RAYMOND LEE HORNBROOK, 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.
Raymond Lee Hornbrook appealed his conviction for receiving stolen property, arguing the state failed to prove that the air conditioning units found in his truck were the same units that had been stolen. The court found the appellant's contention had merit because the only identification evidence was an inadmissible hearsay conclusion without demonstrating the means of identification or connecting the units by serial number.
The conviction must be reversed and remanded for a new trial because the state failed to present adequate evidence connecting the units found in appellant's truck to the stolen units. The identification evidence consisted only of an inadmissible hearsay conclusion without any showing of the means of identification or corroboration by serial number matching.
[1] A conviction for receiving stolen property cannot be sustained when the only evidence connecting the property found in the defendant's possession to the stolen property i…
[2] A conviction will be reversed when the evidence fails to provide substantial proof of material facts necessary to establish guilt.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The only evidence presented as to such identification was a hearsay statement of a conclusion by a deputy sheriff to the effect that through their investigation they had identified the units found in appellant's truck as the stolen units. He did not say how or by what means they were identified or that he made the identification.”
The court's explanation of why the identification evidence was inadequate—it was based on hearsay conclusion without methodological support.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHornbrook was convicted of receiving stolen property involving an air conditioning system. The only identification evidence was a hearsay statement by…
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 Receiving Stolen Property cases and more on FLexlaw
McCORD, Judge.
This is an appeal from appellant’s conviction of receiving stolen property and his sentence thereon. Among other points urged by appellant for reversal was his contention that the state did not prove that the subject matter of the case, the stolen air conditioning system, was the system found in appellant’s possession. This point has merit and requires reversal. The only evidence presented as to such identification was a hearsay statement of a conclusion by a deputy sheriff to the effect that through their investigation they had identified the units found in appellant’s truck as the stolen units. He did not say how or by what means they were identified or that he made the identification. The testimony shows that one of the stolen units had a serial number on it, but there was no testimony that any unit found in appellant’s truck bore that serial number. In sum there was an absence of proof to connect any of the stolen units with the units found in appellant’s truck.
As stated by the District Court of Appeal, Second District in Smith v. State, Fla.App., 228 So. 2d 440 (1969):
“The applicable law in this matter is well stated in Armstrong v. State, 1932, 107 Fla. 494, 496, 145 So. 212, 213:
‘This court is committed to the doctrine that a verdict of guilt of felony should not be upheld when based on guesswork or suspicion, and that, where the evidence, considered as a whole, entirely fails to disclose any substantial proof of material facts necessary to be alleged and proved, a judgment of conviction will be reversed. (Citations omitted.)’ ”
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
RAWLS, Acting C. J., and SMITH, SAMUEL S., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
L. A. v. State, 369 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…y in appellant’s possession was that which had been stolen from the truck. We hold that there was merit in the motion and that the motion for acquittal should have been granted. Carson v. State, 205 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967); Hornbrook v. State, 321 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 1st DGA 1975), and Longshaw v. State, 343 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). The order appealed is reversed with directions to discharge the appellant. Reversed and remanded with directions.…
Authorities Cited
- Armstrong v. State, 107 Fla. 494 (Fla. 1933)
- Hardy v. State, 228 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)