Bellamy v. State

Citations

• 35 Fla. 242

Syllabus

<p>< CRIMINAL LAW — POSSESSION OP STOLEN GOODS — WHAT EXPLANATION THEREOF WILL ACQUIT.</p> <p>1. An instruction that requires the explanation given by a party found in possession of goods recently stolen, as to how he acquired such possession, to be satisfactory, as well as reasonable, before such explanation shall shift the burden on the State of proving the falsity thereof, is erroneous. The correct rule is, that where a party is found in possession of goods recentlystolen and directly gives a reasonable and credible account of how he came into such possession, or such an account as will .xaise a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury, who are the sole judges of its reasonableness, probability and credibility, then it becomes the duty of the State to prove that such account is false, otherwise there should be an acquital.</p> <p>2. The possession of goods recently stolen does not raise a presumption, as matter of law, of the guilt of the possessor, but the presumption arising therefrom is purely a matter of fact to be passed upon by the jury, and of which they are the sole judges; but it is, nevertheless, true that the presumption of .guilt, as a question of inference of fact, is permitted by the .law to be drawn by the jury from the unexplained possession -of recently stolen goods.</p>