Shaffer v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Shaffer v. State

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

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Shaffer v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 3618 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 22, 2000·No. No. 4D98-4106·Published

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.

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

Pincite

753 So. 2d 758 (Shaffer v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related