Andrea v. State

Citations

• 82 Fla. 313

Syllabus

<p>1. The unexplained possession of recently stolen goods is sufficient basis for a verdict of guilty upon a charge of larceny of such goods.</p> <p>2. The question of whether an explanation- made by one found in possession of recently stolen goods when he is upon trial charged with the theft of such goods is reasonable and credible, is one of fact to be considered by the jury in connection with all the other facts and circumstances submitted to them in the trial of the case.</p> <p>3. Evidence of previous good character is not alone sufficient to exculpate one accused of crime, neither does it as matter of law raise a reasonable doubt of guilt. It may be considered together with all the other evidence adduced and if, when considered with all the other evidence, it creates in the minds of the jury a reasonable doubt of guilt, the accused should be given the benefit of the doubt.</p> <p>4. A verdict will not be set aside by an appellate court where the propriety of such verdict depends not upon the lack of evidence but upon the credibility of conflicting evidence.</p>