Lawrence v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lawrence v. State

230 So. 2d 160

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 13, 1970

DocketNo. 69-595

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 230 So. 2d 160 (Lawrence 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

Lawrence v. State, 230 So. 2d 160 (Fla. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

James A. Lawrence appeals from a final judgment and sentence, after a non-jury trial, in which he was found guilty of unlawfully buying, receiving, or aiding in the concealment of stolen property.

By this appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the finding that he had knowledge of the fact that the property found in his possession was stolen.

It is conceded that the property in defendant’s possession was stolen property which he had purchased. He contends the evidence was insufficient to prove he knew or had knowledge of such facts that would amount to knowledge or notice that the property was actually stolen property.

We find that there was sufficient, competent and substantial evidence in this case which would put a man of ordinary intelligence and caution on inquiry, as to the fact that he was purchasing stolen property. Minor v. State, 55 Fla. 90, 45 So. 818 (1908).

The final judgment herein appealed must be and the same is, therefore,

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

James A. Lawrence appeals from a final judgment and sentence, after a non-jury trial, in which he was found guilty of unlawfully buying, receiving, or aiding in the concealment of stolen property.

By this appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the finding that he had knowledge of the fact that the property found in his possession was stolen.

It is conceded that the property in defendant’s possession was stolen property which he had purchased. He contends the evidence was insufficient to prove he knew or had knowledge of such facts that would amount to knowledge or notice that the property was actually stolen property.

We find that there was sufficient, competent and substantial evidence in this case which would put a man of ordinary intelligence and caution on inquiry, as to the fact that he was purchasing stolen property. Minor v. State, 55 Fla. 90, 45 So. 818 (1908).

The final judgment herein appealed must be and the same is, therefore,

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

230 So. 2d 160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lawrence-v-state-fladistctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack