Shaffer v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Shaffer v. State

753 So. 2d 758, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 3420, 2000 WL 294563

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 22, 2000

DocketNo. 4D98-4106

StatusPublished

This text of 753 So. 2d 758 (Shaffer 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

Shaffer v. State, 753 So. 2d 758, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 3420, 2000 WL 294563 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges his conviction for dealing in stolen property, claiming that his motion for judgment of acquittal should have been granted because the evidence was insufficient to show that the property appellant pawned was the same property taken from the victim. However, we conclude that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence presented that linked the stolen property to the victim and to the appellant to survive the motion. See Barton v. State, 302 So.2d 799, 799 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)(“[i]t is well established that identity of stolen property may be determined by the jury from circumstantial evidence”) (citations omitted); see also State v. Fort, 380 So.2d 534, 536 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).

As to appellant’s complaint regarding closing argument, the matters were not [759]*759preserved. We have reviewed the closing argument, and we conclude that the matters raised do not constitute error.

Affirmed.

WARNER, C.J., KLEIN, J„ and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges his conviction for dealing in stolen property, claiming that his motion for judgment of acquittal should have been granted because the evidence was insufficient to show that the property appellant pawned was the same property taken from the victim. However, we conclude that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence presented that linked the stolen property to the victim and to the appellant to survive the motion. See Barton v. State, 302 So.2d 799, 799 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)(“[i]t is well established that identity of stolen property may be determined by the jury from circumstantial evidence”) (citations omitted); see also State v. Fort, 380 So.2d 534, 536 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).

As to appellant’s complaint regarding closing argument, the matters were not [759]*759preserved. We have reviewed the closing argument, and we conclude that the matters raised do not constitute error.

Affirmed.

WARNER, C.J., KLEIN, J„ and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

753 So. 2d 758, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 3420, 2000 WL 294563, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shaffer-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack