JAMES LIEBLER, 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.
Affirmed conviction for receiving stolen property where substantial competent evidence and suspicious circumstances supported the trial judge's finding that the defendant had knowledge the property was stolen.
A conviction for receiving stolen property requires evidence showing the accused knew the property was stolen or that circumstances were sufficiently suspicious to put a person of ordinary intelligence upon inquiry.
[1] A conviction for receiving stolen property requires proof that the accused knew the property was stolen or that the circumstances were sufficiently suspicious to put a pe…
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“It is essential to a conviction for receiving stolen property that the evidence shall show to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge that the property in question was stolen at the time he received it, or that the circumstances of the transaction were sufficiently suspicious to put a person of ordinary intelligence and caution upon inquiry.”
Statement of the legal standard for receiving stolen property convictions, citing Johnson v. State.
Liebler was convicted in a non-jury trial of unlawfully buying, receiving, or aiding in the concealment of stolen property, well knowing it to be stol…
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 Knowledge Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appealing from his conviction, on a non-jury trial, of “unlawfully buying, receiving or aiding in the concealment of stolen property, well knowing the same to be stolen”, the appellant argues the court erred in denying his motion for acquittal and in finding and adjudging him guilty, contending the evidence was insufficient to establish the element of knowledge that the property was stolen. “It is essential to a conviction for receiving stolen property that the evidence shall show to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge that the property in question was stolen at the time he received it, or that the circumstances of the transaction were sufficiently suspicious to put a person of ordinary intelligence and caution upon inquiry.” Johnson v. State, 127 Fla. 100, 172 So. 708. See also Franklin v. State, 66 Fla. 213, 63 So. 418; Cortes v. State, 135 Fla. 589, 185 So. 323; Monteresi v. State, 160 Fla. 489, 35 So. 2d 582. Cf. State v. Graham, Fla. 1970, 238 So. 2d 618.
On consideration of this appeal we find no reversible error has been shown. There was substantial competent evidence to support the judgment of conviction. The circumstances of the transaction as revealed in the record were sufficiently suspicious to put a person of ordinary intelligence and caution upon inquiry as to the stolen character of the property involved. The question as-to proof of such element, based on the evidence, was within the province of the judge as the trier of the facts.
The judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Graham, 238 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 1970)
- Cortes v. State, 135 Fla. 589 (Fla. 1938)
- Franklin v. State, 66 Fla. 213 (Fla. 1913)
- Johnson v. State, 127 Fla. 100 (Fla. 1937)
- Monteresi v. State, 160 Fla. 489 (Fla. 1948)