Skip to main content

Thompson v. State

Citations

  • 58 Fla. 106

Syllabus

<p>1. Where it is shown that a building has been entered and property stolen therefrom, and soon thereafter the property is found in the possession of the person charged with entering the building with intent to steal, such possession unexplained may warrant the jury to infer guilt of the crime of entering the building with intent to steal. The guilt of the accused does not follow as a presumption or conclusion of law from the unexplained possession of property recently stolen, but an inference of guilt as a matter of fact may be drawn therefrom by the jury to be considered by them in connection with the other evidence.</p> <p>2. The identity of stolen money may be determined by the jury from circumstantial evidence.</p> <p>3. Where there is testimony from which the jury might legally have inferred all the essential elements of the crime charged, and it does not appear that the jury were influenced by considerations other than the evidence, a verdict of guilty will not be disturbed.</p> <p>4. Where the bill of exceptions shows that all the charges given by the court to the jury are not brought to the appellate court, a mere refusal to give a requested charge will not be held error since even if the requested charge is correct in terms, a charge sufficiently covering the point may have been given.</p> <p>5. Any legal evidence from which the jury may legitimately deduce guilt or innocence is admissible, if, when taken with other evidence in the case, its relevancy appears.</p> <p>6. WTiere larceny of money is at issue, evidence tending to show that the defendant had no money before and considerable money after the larceny, is admissible to be considered with other circumstances in the case.</p> <p>7. Where money found on a defendant corresponds in description with stolen money the circumstance may be relevant in an issue involving larceny of the money.</p> <p>8. Applications for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence should be supported by affidavits s

Judges: Cockrell, Hocker, Parkhill, Shackleford, Taylor, Whitfield

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

10 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

15 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.