Williams v. State

Citations

• 40 Fla. 480

Syllabus

<p>Criminal Law — Larceny—Possession of Stolen Goods, When Evidence of.</p> <p>t. The following instruction in a trial for larceny of cattle: “That when a man is found in possession of stolen cattle, with the mark or brand changed into his, or with his mark or brand on the cattle, in the absence of a reasonable and credible explanation of those facts you may infer that he stole them:’’ Held, to be erroneous, first, because of its omission of the legal requirement that the possession must be of goods recently stolen in order that an inference of guilt from such possession may be drawn; second, and because it requires a reasonable and credible explanation from the suspected possessor, not only of his possession thereof, but of an, alteration of the distinguislmig marks and brands on the property, before such explanation is permitted to clear him of the charge of ■ larceny thereof. The settled rule is that the possession of stolen goods must be recent after their loss -in order to impute guilt. The presumption of guilt in larceny that the law permits a jury to draw as a matter of fact from the unexplained possession of property recently stolen, grows out of and rests solely upon the unexplained possession thereof, and not upon any alterations or mutilations to which the property may have been subjected while in the defendant’s possession, or before it reached his possession, and to acquit the accused of the charge of larceny when there is no other evidence of guilt than that of the possession of recently stolen goods, the law only requires from him a prompt, reasonable and credible explanation of his possession thereof-</p>