Carpenter v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Carpenter v. State

213 So. 2d 738

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 11, 1968

DocketNo. 68-192

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 213 So. 2d 738 (Carpenter v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carpenter v. State, 213 So. 2d 738 (Fla. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

MANN, Judge.

Prior to this court’s rulings in Gamble v. State, 210 So.2d 238 (1968); and Urquhart v. State, 211 So.2d 79 (1968) the court below declined to follow the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision in Young v. State, 203 So.2d 650 (1967). Our adoption of the Young ruling makes necessary a new trial for Carpenter without the seriously objectionable charge which in effect requires the defendant to testify against himself to avoid the jury’s inference of larceny from the unexplained possession of recently stolen property This case is not distinguishable, as the state suggests, because the defendant did answer some questions put to him by the arresting officers. The jury may draw inferences from possession as it may from other circumstantial evidence, but not from unexplained possession.

The record is otherwise free from error.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

LILES, C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.

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

MANN, Judge.

Prior to this court’s rulings in Gamble v. State, 210 So.2d 238 (1968); and Urquhart v. State, 211 So.2d 79 (1968) the court below declined to follow the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision in Young v. State, 203 So.2d 650 (1967). Our adoption of the Young ruling makes necessary a new trial for Carpenter without the seriously objectionable charge which in effect requires the defendant to testify against himself to avoid the jury’s inference of larceny from the unexplained possession of recently stolen property This case is not distinguishable, as the state suggests, because the defendant did answer some questions put to him by the arresting officers. The jury may draw inferences from possession as it may from other circumstantial evidence, but not from unexplained possession.

The record is otherwise free from error.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

LILES, C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 So. 2d 738, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carpenter-v-state-fladistctapp-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack