Yanks v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Yanks v. State

261 So. 2d 533, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6874

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 11, 1972

DocketNo. 71-976

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 261 So. 2d 533 (Yanks 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

Yanks v. State, 261 So. 2d 533, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6874 (Fla. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was tried before a jury and found guilty of buying, receiving, and concealing stolen property. He was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to five years in the state penitentiary. On this appeal he argues: (1) that the evidence is insufficient to prove that he knew the property was stolen when he purchased it; (2) that the prosecutor created prejudicial error in his argument before the jury; and, (3) that the charge of the court was confusing and misleading.

We have reviewed the record and find that the evidence of appellant’s knowledge of the fact that the articles he purchased were stolen was sufficiently established by the testimony before the jury. See Schuster v. State, Fla.App.1970, 235 So.2d 30; and People v. Schroeder (1968), 264 Cal.App.2d 217, 70 Cal.Rptr. 491.

Appellant’s second point is directed to the language of the prosecutor and does not present reversible error. Collins v. State, Fla.1965, 180 So.2d 340; Whitney v. State, Fla.1961, 132 So.2d 599; Goddard v. State, 143 Fla. 28, 196 So. 596 (1940); and Hamrick v. State, Fla.App.1970, 235 So.2d 360. We have reviewed the charge to the jury and find that it cannot reasonably be said to be confusing. A reviewing [534]*534court will look to the entire charge rather than to one statement out of context in determining whether a charge to the jury is error. Mathews v. State, Fla.App. 1969, 221 So.2d 431.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was tried before a jury and found guilty of buying, receiving, and concealing stolen property. He was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to five years in the state penitentiary. On this appeal he argues: (1) that the evidence is insufficient to prove that he knew the property was stolen when he purchased it; (2) that the prosecutor created prejudicial error in his argument before the jury; and, (3) that the charge of the court was confusing and misleading.

We have reviewed the record and find that the evidence of appellant’s knowledge of the fact that the articles he purchased were stolen was sufficiently established by the testimony before the jury. See Schuster v. State, Fla.App.1970, 235 So.2d 30; and People v. Schroeder (1968), 264 Cal.App.2d 217, 70 Cal.Rptr. 491.

Appellant’s second point is directed to the language of the prosecutor and does not present reversible error. Collins v. State, Fla.1965, 180 So.2d 340; Whitney v. State, Fla.1961, 132 So.2d 599; Goddard v. State, 143 Fla. 28, 196 So. 596 (1940); and Hamrick v. State, Fla.App.1970, 235 So.2d 360. We have reviewed the charge to the jury and find that it cannot reasonably be said to be confusing. A reviewing [534]*534court will look to the entire charge rather than to one statement out of context in determining whether a charge to the jury is error. Mathews v. State, Fla.App. 1969, 221 So.2d 431.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 So. 2d 533, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6874, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yanks-v-state-fladistctapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack