KENNETH RICHARDSON, 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.
Kenneth Richardson appealed his conviction for buying, receiving, or concealing stolen property under Florida law. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, rejecting Richardson's arguments that the jury instruction on knowledge was improper, that the evidence was insufficient, and that the verdict form was defective.
The court held that the jury instruction properly stated the law regarding knowledge of stolen property—it required proof that the defendant knew or should have known the property was stolen, and did not allow conviction based on less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence was sufficient, and the verdict form was proper because the defendant failed to object to it and actually agreed to its submission.
[1] A defendant must object to a jury instruction at trial to preserve for appeal the claim that the instruction was improperly worded.
[2] Knowledge that property is stolen, for the purpose of a receiving stolen property offense, can be established by actual knowledge or by facts that would put a person of o…
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 necessary ingredient of the offense of receiving stolen property, knowing it to have been stolen, is knowledge on the receiver's part at the time that he receives the thing stolen that the property is stolen, or of such fact as would put a person of ordinary intelligence and caution on inquiry”
Establishes the proper legal standard for the knowledge element in receiving stolen property, which the trial court correctly instructed
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRichardson was charged with buying, receiving, or concealing stolen property under Section 811.16, Florida Statutes. A jury found him guilty based on …
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 Of Stolen Property cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This appeal is by the defendant from a judgment finding him guilty of buying, receiving or concealing stolen property pursuant to Section 811.16, Florida Statutes (1973).1 The judgment was entered upon a jury verdict.
On this appeal, the principal contention is that the trial judge erred in giving an instruction on the degree of proof necessary for knowledge that the property was, in fact, stolen property. Appellant urges that an instruction given by the court allowed an element of the crime to be proved by evidence less than that allowed for conviction. A fair reading of the instruction convinces us that the court did not instruct, as appellant suggests, that it was not neces sary to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew the property to be stolen. What the court did instruct is that the necessary ingredient of the offense of receiving stolen property, knowing it to have been stolen, is knowledge on the receiver’s part at the time that he receives the thing stolen that the property is stolen, or of such fact as would put a person of ordinary intelligence and caution on inquiry. Hayward v. State, 152 Fla. 608, 12 So. 2d 458 (1943); Seymour v. State, 246 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). The appellant conceived that the instruction was not worded properly, it was necessary for him to object to the instruction. See Dorminey v. State, 314 So. 2d 134 (Fla.1975). This was not done in this case.
Appellant’s point directed to the sufficiency of the evidence is not supported by the record and, therefore, does not present error. The point claiming error in the form of the verdict was not preserved for appeal because the defendant not only failed to object to the form of the verdict but also actually agreed to its submission. See McPhee v. State, 254 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971).
The remaining points claim error upon the examination of the defendant as to prior convictions and evidence of the circumstances surrounding the theft of the property. We conclude that the facts were relevant and properly admitted.
Affirmed.
. The revision of this statute appears at Section 812.031, Florida Statutes (1976 Supp.).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
March v. State, 476 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Salvatore v. State, 366 So. 2d 745 (Fla.1979); Richardson v. State, 345 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).…
-
Kirkland v. State, 357 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)…act; ergo, there is no merit to defendant’s first point on appeal . The cases establish that defects in the form of the verdict, such as in this case, are waived on failure to object at some point during the trial proceedings. Richardson v. State, 345 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); McPhee v. State, 254 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971); Biesendorfer v. State, 227 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969); c.f. Anderson v. State, 338 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). Appellant’s point directed to the sufficiency of the evid…
-
Perry v. State, 362 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)…e blast at the sufficiency of a verdict while employing the verbiage of Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.600(a)(2) does not, with any specificity, direct the attention of the court to any particular subject as to which correction is desired. In Richardson v. State, 345 So. 2d 380 (Fla.3d DCA 1977), the court considered a challenge to the sufficiency of the form of a verdict in a prosecution for receiving or 'concealing stolen property knowing it to have been stolen, and ruled: “The point claiming error in the form of the ve…
Authorities Cited
- McPHEE v. State, 254 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- State v. McHANEY, 314 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 1975)
- Brant Hayward and Vance Hayward v. State, 152 Fla. 608 (Fla. 1943)
- Seymour v. State, 246 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)