Franklin v. State

George Franklin, in Error v. The State of Florida, in Error

Franklin v. State, 63 So. 418 (Fla. 1913)

Court: Supreme Court of Florida · State Highest Courts
Decided: October 28, 1913
Judges: Cockrell, Hooker, Shackleford, Taylor, Whitfield
Citations: 63 So. 41866 Fla. 213
Disposition: Judgment reversed.

Headnotes

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. 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. 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.

Summary

Writ of error to Criminal Court of Record, Duval County; John S'. Maxwell, Judge.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Whitfield

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Whitfield, J.

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

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. Minor v. State, 55 Fla. 90 , 45 South. Rep. 818 .

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. See McDonald v. State, 56 Fla. 74 , 47 South. Rep. 485 ; Baker v. State, 54 Fla. 12 , 44 South. Rep. 719 .

The 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 *215 the 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.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 19 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Taylor v. State241 So. 2d 426 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1970)
Hamilton v. State176 So. 89 (Fla. 1937)
State v. Graham238 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 1970)
Knowles v. State97 So. 716 (Fla. 1923)
Licata v. State88 So. 621 (Fla. 1921)
Dewey v. State186 So. 224 (Fla. 1938) · Dissent

Most recent

Barket v. State342 So. 2d 526 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)
Liebler v. State327 So. 2d 800 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976)
Taylor v. State241 So. 2d 426 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1970)
State v. Graham238 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 1970)
Tidwell v. State196 So. 837 (Fla. 1940) · Concurrence
Dewey v. State186 So. 224 (Fla. 1938) · Dissent

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

Depth	Case	Cited by
	McDonald v. State, 56 Fla. 74 (1908)	61
	Minor v. State, 55 Fla. 90 (1908)	27
	Baker v. State, 54 Fla. 12 (1907)	12

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list