Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

66 Fla. 213

Franklin v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided October 28, 1913

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1913-10-28

<p>1. It is essential to a conviction for receiving stolen property that the receiver shall have knowledge that the property was stolen at the time of its reception, or of such circumstances as would put a man of ordinary intelligence and caution on inquiry.</p> <p>2. Where a particular fact is an essential element in the commission of a crime, and in a prosecution for such a crime there is no .evidence showing the essential fact, and no evidence from which the existence of such essential fact may fairly be inferred, a verdict of guilty of the crime of which such non-proven fact is an essential part, may be set aside by an appellate court.</p> <p>3. In a prosecution for receiving stolen goods knowing them to have been stolen, where there is nothing in the evidence tending to show the defendant knew the goods were stolen, and no evidence that reasonably should have put him ujoon inquiry, a verdict of guilty is unauthorized by law.</p>

Relies on McDonald v. State · Minor v. State · Baker v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Judgment reversed · Decided 1913-10-28

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently February 1977 · most notably Hamilton v. State (1937), 238 So. 2d 618 - State v. Graham (1970)

26 state decisions

801913192019301940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Whitfield, J.

¶1Franklin was convicted of receiving stolen goods knowing them to have been stolen, and took writ of error.

¶2It is essential to a conviction for receiving stolen property that the receiver shall have knowledge that the property was stolen at the time of its reception, or of such circumstances as would put a man of ordinary intelligence and caution on inquiry. Minor v. State, 55 Fla. 90, 45 South. Rep. 818.

¶3Where a particular fact is an essential element in the commission of a crime, and in a prosecution for such a crime there is no evidence showing the essential fact, and no evidence from which the existence of such essential fact may fairly be inferred, a verdict of guilty of the crime of which such non-proven fact is an essential part, may be set aside by an appellate court. See McDonald v. State, 56 Fla. 74, 47 South. Rep. 485; Baker v. State, 54 Fla. 12, 44 South. Rep. 719.

¶4The uncontradicted evidence shows that about dark Saturday night the defendant Franklin reluctantly allowed boxes of goods to be put in his store by a person who asked that they be allowed to remain there over Suncfay. Within thirty minutes after they were put in the store officers asked if anyone had left anything there lately. Franklin promptly showed the boxes to the officers and told them when and why they were put there. There is nothing in the record to indicate that Franklin knew the goods were stolen, and there are no circumstances in evidence that were calculated to put him upon inquiry or to lead to the conclusion that Franklin knew *215the goods were stolen. Minor v. State, supra. This being so an essential element of the alleged crime has not been proved, and the judgment of conviction is reversed.

Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Cockrell and Hooker, J. J., concur.
/66/fla/213 · .json · Public domain