870 So. 2d 923 - Bertone v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(2) [P]roof of possession of property recently stolen, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise lo an inference that the person in possession of the property knew or should have known that (he property had been stolen. (3) Proof of the purchase or sale of stolen property at a price substantially below the fair market value, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that (he person buying or selling the properly knew or should have known that the property had been stolen.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wilkins v. State · 897 So. 2d 517 - Kittles v. State

2. “In Jackson v. State, 736 So.2d 77, 83-84 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), we held that the circumstantial evidence rule of State v. Graham, 238 So.2d 618 (Fla.1970), applied to the inference of guilty knowledge created by section 812.022(2). In Graham , the supreme court held that the unexplained possession of recently stolen property, and nothing more, was insufficient to support a conviction for buying, receiving, or aiding in the concealment of stolen property. [2] The supreme court wrote that: [p]roof of mere naked possession of property recently stolen, not aided by other proof that the accused received it knowing it to have been stolen, is not sufficient to show guilty knowledge. Proof of possession should be coupled with evidence of unusual manner of acquisition, attempts at concealment, contradictory statements, the fact that the goods were being sold at less than their value, possession of other stolen property, or other incriminating evidence and circumstances. 238 So.2d at 621 (citation omitted). A line of cases following the reasoning of Graham holds that a section 812.022(2) inference, without more, is legally insufficient to support a guilty verdict, in the face of an unrefuted, exculpatory, and not unreasonable explanation offered by the accused for his or her possession of the goods in question.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 897 So. 2d 517 - Kittles v. State