Barket v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Barket v. State

356 So. 2d 263, 1978 Fla. LEXIS 4693

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedFebruary 16, 1978

DocketNo. 51192

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 356 So. 2d 263 (Barket v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barket v. State, 356 So. 2d 263, 1978 Fla. LEXIS 4693 (Fla. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Following his conviction for receiving stolen property, Samuel Barket appealed to the First District Court of Appeal challenging the validity of former Florida Standard Jury Instruction 2.06, insofar as it allowed the jury to find him guilty without proof of his actual knowledge that property in his possession was stolen.¹ The district court affirmed Barket’s conviction and certified its decision to us as having passed upon a question of great public interest.² We accept jurisdiction under Article V, Section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution.

The district court correctly rejected each of Barket’s challenges to the jury instruction, and properly affirmed his conviction. When our instruction on the type of proof necessary to attribute to a defendant knowledge that goods in his possession were stolen is considered with all other instructions given to the jury relative to the state’s burden of proof, we cannot say that there is error which requires a reversal of Barket’s conviction. Forrest v. State, 133 Fla. 310, 182 So. 849 (1938). The certified question is answered accordingly, and the decision of the district court is affirmed.³

OVERTON, C. J., and BOYD, ENGLAND and HATCHETT, JJ., concur. ADKINS, J., dissents.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Following his conviction for receiving stolen property, Samuel Barket appealed to the First District Court of Appeal challenging the validity of former Florida Standard Jury Instruction 2.06, insofar as it allowed the jury to find him guilty without proof of his actual knowledge that property in his possession was stolen.¹ The district court affirmed Barket’s conviction and certified its decision to us as having passed upon a question of great public interest.² We accept jurisdiction under Article V, Section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution.

The district court correctly rejected each of Barket’s challenges to the jury instruction, and properly affirmed his conviction. When our instruction on the type of proof necessary to attribute to a defendant knowledge that goods in his possession were stolen is considered with all other instructions given to the jury relative to the state’s burden of proof, we cannot say that there is error which requires a reversal of Barket’s conviction. Forrest v. State, 133 Fla. 310, 182 So. 849 (1938). The certified question is answered accordingly, and the decision of the district court is affirmed.³

OVERTON, C. J., and BOYD, ENGLAND and HATCHETT, JJ., concur. ADKINS, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

356 So. 2d 263, 1978 Fla. LEXIS 4693, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barket-v-state-fla-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack