Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

82 Fla. 463

Worster v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided December 17, 1921

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1921-12-17

<p>A Writ of Error to the Criminal Court of Record for Duval County; J. M. Peeler, Judge.</p>

Relies on Franklin v. State · Minor v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed · Decided 1921-12-17

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently December 1970

14 state decisions

60192119301940195019601970decided

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 →

West, J.

¶1Plaintiff in error was informed against in the Criminal Court of Record of Duval County upon a charge of receiving, buying and aiding in the concealment of certain stolen personal property knowing the same to have been stolen. At the trial a verdict of guilty as charged was returned. Sentence was imposed and writ of error taken to review the judgment pronouncing sentence.

¶2Several assignments of error raise questions of procedure in the trial of the case but the conclusion reached renders it unnecessary to discuss more than one of them.

¶3One of the essential elements of the crime charged is knowledge by the accused at the time of the reception or concealment of the goods alleged to have been received or concealed that they had been previously stolen. Section 5138 Revised General Statutes of Florida; Franklin v. State, 66 Fla. 213, 63 South. Rep. 418; Minor v. State, 55 Fla. 90, 45 South. Rep. 818. In the absence of proof of this element a conviction cannot be upheld.

¶4In this case the property alleged to have been stolen was an automobile fire. It appears from the record that the person accused of the theft admitted it and entered pleas ol: guilty. At the trial of plaintiff in error they testified that at his direction they placed the tire under the house in which he lived; that he was to sell it for them and that he advanced to them a sum of money on it; but there is no proof of knowledge on his part that the property was stolen. His relation to the transaction is not inconsistent with innocence. It may be that upon another trial proof of this element can be supplied, but in its absence there *465was error in tbe Court’s order overruling the motion for new trial. For this error the judgment must be reversed.

Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield and Ellis, J. J., concur.
/82/fla/463 · .json · Public domain