Florida Statute 812.22 - Full Text and Legal Analysis

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title XLVI
CRIMES

Chapter 812
THEFT, ROBBERY, AND RELATED CRIMES

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 812.022

812.022 Evidence of theft or dealing in stolen property.—

(1) Proof that a person presented false identification, or identification not current with respect to name, address, place of employment, or other material aspects, in connection with the leasing of personal property, or failed to return leased property within 72 hours of the termination of the leasing agreement, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that such property was obtained or is now used with intent to commit theft.

(2) Except as provided in subsection (5), proof of possession of property recently stolen, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that the person in possession of the property knew or should have known that the property had been stolen.

(3) Proof of the purchase or sale of stolen property at a price substantially below the fair market value, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that the person buying or selling the property knew or should have known that the property had been stolen.

(4) Proof of the purchase or sale of stolen property by a dealer in property, out of the regular course of business or without the usual indicia of ownership other than mere possession, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that the person buying or selling the property knew or should have known that it had been stolen.

(5) Proof that a dealer who regularly deals in used property possesses stolen property upon which a name and phone number of a person other than the offeror of the property are conspicuously displayed gives rise to an inference that the dealer possessing the property knew or should have known that the property was stolen.

(a) If the name and phone number are for a business that rents property, the dealer avoids the inference by contacting such business, prior to accepting the property, to verify that the property was not stolen from such business. If the name and phone number are not for a business that rents property, the dealer avoids the inference by contacting the local law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction where the dealer is located, prior to accepting the property, to verify that the property has not been reported stolen. An accurate written record, which contains the number called, the date and time of such call, and the name and place of employment of the person who verified that the property was not stolen, is sufficient evidence to avoid the inference pursuant to this subsection.

(b) This subsection does not apply to:

1. Persons, entities, or transactions exempt from chapter 538.

2. Used sports equipment that does not contain a serial number, printed or recorded materials, computer software, or videos or video games.

3. A dealer who implements, in a continuous and consistent manner, a program for identification and return of stolen property that meets the following criteria:

a. When a dealer is offered property for pawn or purchase that contains conspicuous identifying information that includes a name and phone number, or a dealer is offered property for pawn or purchase that contains ownership information that is affixed to the property pursuant to a written agreement with a business entity or group of associated business entities, the dealer will promptly contact the individual or company whose name is affixed to the property by phone to confirm that the property has not been stolen. If the individual or business contacted indicates that the property has been stolen, the dealer shall not accept the property.

b. If the dealer is unable to verify whether the property is stolen from the individual or business, and if the dealer accepts the property that is later determined to have been stolen, the dealer will voluntarily return the property at no cost and without the necessity of a replevin action, if the property owner files the appropriate theft reports with law enforcement and enters into an agreement with the dealer to actively participate in the prosecution of the person or persons who perpetrated the crime.

c. If a dealer is required by law to complete and submit a transaction form to law enforcement, the dealer shall include all conspicuously displayed ownership information on the transaction form.

(6) Proof that a person was in possession of a stolen motor vehicle and that the ignition mechanism of the motor vehicle had been bypassed or the steering wheel locking mechanism had been broken or bypassed, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that the person in possession of the stolen motor vehicle knew or should have known that the motor vehicle had been stolen.

History.—s. 8, ch. 77-342; s. 1, ch. 2004-341; s. 1, ch. 2006-107.

F.S. 812.022 on Google Scholar

F.S. 812.022 on CourtListener

Amendments to 812.022

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 812.022

Total Results: 128

Bowen v. Bowen

471 So. 2d 1274, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 318

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jun 20, 1985 | Docket: 1396540

Cited 161 times | Published

been approved in other criminal matters. See § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. (1983) (statutory inference that

In Re Stan. Jury Instr. in Criminal Cases

543 So. 2d 1205, 1989 WL 34342

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Mar 30, 1989 | Docket: 1729777

Cited 112 times | Published

current in respect to name, address, place of F.S. 812.022(1) employment or other material aspect

Brown v. State

426 So. 2d 76

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 8, 1983 | Docket: 510869

Cited 40 times | Published

Court, in sustaining the constitutionality of Section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (1977),[1] reasoned that

Standard Jury Inst. in Cr. Cases No. 2006-2

962 So. 2d 310, 2007 WL 2002611

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 12, 2007 | Docket: 2518611

Cited 36 times | Published

alleged) was stolen. Inferences. Give if applicable. § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. Proof of possession of recently

In Re Jury Instructions in Crim. Cases

911 So. 2d 766, 2005 WL 2095664

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Sep 1, 2005 | Docket: 1751810

Cited 18 times | Published

a dwelling].] Inferences; give if applicable § 812.022(1), Fla. Stat. Proof that a person presented false

RAL v. State

402 So. 2d 1337

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 1, 1981 | Docket: 1280757

Cited 18 times | Published

based solely on the inference provided by Section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (1979),[1] without any

TSR v. State

596 So. 2d 766, 1992 WL 63450

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 3, 1992 | Docket: 1707551

Cited 17 times | Published

v. State, 40 Fla. 480, 25 So. 143 (1898). Section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes, provides that proof of

Goin v. Commission on Ethics

658 So. 2d 1131, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 8136, 1995 WL 449548

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 1, 1995 | Docket: 439399

Cited 15 times | Published

considered whether the following provision of section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (1977), violated due process:

Haugabrook v. State

827 So. 2d 1065, 2002 WL 31267818

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 11, 2002 | Docket: 1360905

Cited 13 times | Published

evidentiary inference created by statute. Section 812.022(2) creates an evidentiary inference that "possession

Scobee v. State

488 So. 2d 595, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1053

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 5, 1986 | Docket: 1685446

Cited 13 times | Published

instruction on theft, an instruction *598 taken from Section 812.022, Florida Statutes: Proof of possession of recently

Coleman v. State

466 So. 2d 395, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 841

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 27, 1985 | Docket: 1525010

Cited 13 times | Published

but guilty of dealing in stolen property. Section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (1981), provides as follows:

GC v. State

560 So. 2d 1186, 1990 WL 6486

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 24, 1990 | Docket: 1478037

Cited 12 times | Published

of suspicion that the car was stolen. See also § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. (1987). [4] It would also appear

Guerrero v. State

532 So. 2d 75, 1988 WL 107030

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 18, 1988 | Docket: 1510294

Cited 12 times | Published

unexplained possession of recently stolen property. See § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. (1985). During deliberations, the

Smith v. State

742 So. 2d 352, 1999 WL 606451

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 13, 1999 | Docket: 1303087

Cited 11 times | Published

should have known that the property was stolen. § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat.[3]; T.S.R.; Scobee v. State, 488

Smith v. State

742 So. 2d 352, 1999 WL 606451

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 13, 1999 | Docket: 1303087

Cited 11 times | Published

should have known that the property was stolen. § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat.[3]; T.S.R.; Scobee v. State, 488

Vermette v. Ludwig

707 So. 2d 742, 1997 WL 777926

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 10, 1997 | Docket: 1260097

Cited 11 times | Published

had dealt in stolen property in violation of section 812.022, Florida Statutes (1991). Ludwig argues here

AR v. State

393 So. 2d 1174

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 10, 1981 | Docket: 1097162

Cited 11 times | Published

property was not satisfactorily explained. See Section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (1979). This determination

Walker v. State

896 So. 2d 712, 2005 WL 425409

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Feb 24, 2005 | Docket: 1283058

Cited 10 times | Published

270. Both jury instructions are derived from section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (2002), which reads verbatim

Jackson v. State

736 So. 2d 77, 1999 WL 371321

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 9, 1999 | Docket: 1736640

Cited 10 times | Published

part of the standard instruction based on section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (1997) which provides:

Scott v. State

722 So. 2d 256, 1998 WL 852307

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 11, 1998 | Docket: 1241943

Cited 9 times | Published

why he did not know the property was stolen. Section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (1997); Currington v.

Bronson v. State

926 So. 2d 480, 2006 WL 1113548

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 28, 2006 | Docket: 467108

Cited 8 times | Published

is not cured by the inference provided by section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (2003). This statute provides

Duncan v. State

616 So. 2d 140, 1993 WL 88631

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 25, 1993 | Docket: 1726626

Cited 8 times | Published

should have known the property was stolen. See section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (1989). The attempt to

In Re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases-No. 2007-11

986 So. 2d 563, 33 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 554, 2008 Fla. LEXIS 1237, 2008 WL 2679168

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 10, 2008 | Docket: 1727850

Cited 7 times | Published

emergency.] Inferences. Give if applicable. § 812.022(1), Fla. Stat. Proof that a person presented false

Patten v. State

492 So. 2d 748, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1670

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 1, 1986 | Docket: 478203

Cited 7 times | Published

State, 466 So.2d 395 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (1985), provides: Proof

NC v. State

478 So. 2d 1142, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2577

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 21, 1985 | Docket: 1484551

Cited 7 times | Published

v. State, 40 Fla. 480, 25 So. 143 (1898). Section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (1983), provides that

PN v. State

443 So. 2d 193

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 13, 1983 | Docket: 2586125

Cited 7 times | Published

in possession of a recently stolen moped. Section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (1981). When he was stopped

Edwards v. State

381 So. 2d 696

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jan 31, 1980 | Docket: 1723022

Cited 7 times | Published

constitutional. We affirm the order of the trial court. Section 812.022(2) states: Proof of possession of property

ARKHEEM J. LAMB v. STATE OF FLORIDA

246 So. 3d 400

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 2, 2018 | Docket: 6383139

Cited 6 times | Published

time with the wrong crowd after the fact. See § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. (2016) (“[P]roof of possession

Wilson v. State

884 So. 2d 74, 2004 WL 784520

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 14, 2004 | Docket: 1683122

Cited 6 times | Published

he was entitled to a judgment of acquittal. Section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (2002), provides that

Boone v. State

711 So. 2d 594, 1998 WL 204622

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 29, 1998 | Docket: 1338015

Cited 6 times | Published

been stolen. Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 148; § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat (1995). The instruction allows the

RDS v. State

446 So. 2d 1181

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 20, 1984 | Docket: 1779942

Cited 6 times | Published

based solely on the inference provided by Section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (1979), without any additional

Townsley v. State

443 So. 2d 1072

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 18, 1984 | Docket: 1746869

Cited 6 times | Published

purchase price was not satisfactorily explained. § 812.022(3), Fla. Stat. However, appellant was not charged

McNeil v. State

433 So. 2d 1294

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 30, 1983 | Docket: 1727668

Cited 6 times | Published

possession of the recently stolen equipment. § 812.022, Florida Statutes. However, mere possession of

Chamberland v. State

429 So. 2d 842

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 20, 1983 | Docket: 1667684

Cited 6 times | Published

have known that the property had been stolen. § 812.022, Fla. Stat. (1981). To take advantage of this

Blackmon v. State

121 So. 3d 535, 38 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 611, 2013 WL 4555655, 2013 Fla. LEXIS 1863

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Aug 29, 2013 | Docket: 60234445

Cited 5 times | Published

have known that the property had been stolen.” § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. (2009). Blackmon asserts that this

In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases—Report No. 2012-01

109 So. 3d 721, 2013 WL 535407

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Feb 14, 2013 | Docket: 60229786

Cited 5 times | Published

emergency.] Inferences. Give if applicable. § 812.022(1), Fla. Stat. Proof that a person presented

In Re Jury Inst. in Cr. Cases (No. 2004-1)

915 So. 2d 609, 2005 WL 3072036

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Nov 17, 2005 | Docket: 1311010

Cited 5 times | Published

a dwelling].] Inferences; give if applicable § 812.022(1), Fla. Stat. Proof that a person presented false

Bertone v. State

870 So. 2d 923, 2004 WL 840604

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 21, 2004 | Docket: 1698116

Cited 5 times | Published

the saws were stolen, the state relied on section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (2002), which provides:

Dellechiaie v. State

734 So. 2d 423, 1998 WL 558750

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 4, 1998 | Docket: 1731046

Cited 5 times | Published

have known that the property was stolen. See § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. (1991). For its part, the defense

Moore v. State

623 So. 2d 842, 1993 WL 341119

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 10, 1993 | Docket: 1658389

Cited 5 times | Published

[2] § 319.33(1)(d), Fla. Stat. (1991). [3] § 812.022, Fla. Stat. (1991).

MPW v. State

702 So. 2d 591, 1997 WL 740791

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 3, 1997 | Docket: 1513274

Cited 4 times | Published

90 So.2d 629, 631 (Fla.1956). In addition, section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes(1993), provides "[p]roof

Jones v. State

648 So. 2d 1210, 1995 WL 7654

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 11, 1995 | Docket: 1701981

Cited 4 times | Published

Such evidence was admissible pursuant to section 812.022, Florida Statutes (1993). Affirmed. GLICKSTEIN

Johnson v. State

388 So. 2d 1088

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 7, 1980 | Docket: 420025

Cited 4 times | Published

of her knowledge of that fact arose under Section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (1979), unless the possession

Currington v. State

711 So. 2d 218, 1998 WL 256863

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 22, 1998 | Docket: 1700475

Cited 3 times | Published

the possession of recently stolen property. Section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (1997), the model for

Valdez v. State

492 So. 2d 750, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1691

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 5, 1986 | Docket: 478583

Cited 3 times | Published

a reliance upon the inference provided by section 812.022(2), Florida *752 Statutes (1983).[2] Valdez

State v. Fox

404 So. 2d 799

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 6, 1981 | Docket: 1047549

Cited 3 times | Published

was clearly a jury question of his guilt. Section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (1979); State v. Graham

Rivers v. State

124 So. 3d 247, 2013 WL 4483096, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 13460

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 23, 2013 | Docket: 60235427

Cited 2 times | Published

have known that *254it had been stolen.” See § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. (2008); Fla. Std. Jury Insto. (Crim

Yudin v. State

117 So. 3d 457, 2013 WL 3724767, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 11299

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 17, 2013 | Docket: 60232681

Cited 2 times | Published

State’s case against Yudin is entirely based on section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (2009), which provides

Ward v. State

40 So. 3d 854, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 10331, 2010 WL 2882463

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 14, 2010 | Docket: 1667031

Cited 2 times | Published

931 So.2d 1006, 1008 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). Section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (2008) provides that "proof

Vargas v. State

34 So. 3d 44, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 2950, 2010 WL 785813

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 10, 2010 | Docket: 1641486

Cited 2 times | Published

have known that the property had been stolen." § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. (2004). Further, the fact that

MDS v. State

982 So. 2d 1282, 2008 WL 2356691

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 11, 2008 | Docket: 1206814

Cited 2 times | Published

Acura was "recently stolen." The inference in section 812.022(2) does not apply under these circumstances

Kerr v. State

954 So. 2d 692, 2007 WL 1136098

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 18, 2007 | Docket: 1652132

Cited 2 times | Published

possessor knew the property had been stolen, see § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. (2005) ("proof of possession of

A.D.P. v. State

223 So. 3d 428, 2017 WL 2988792, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 10101

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 14, 2017 | Docket: 60269949

Cited 1 times | Published

of possession of recently stolen property. See § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. (2014). The trial court denied

In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases—Instruction 14.2

121 So. 3d 520, 2013 WL 4555389, 2013 Fla. LEXIS 1859

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Aug 29, 2013 | Docket: 60234443

Cited 1 times | Published

was stolen. Inferences. Give if applicable. § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. Proof of possession of recently

Singleton v. State

105 So. 3d 542, 2012 WL 2813962, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 11221

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 11, 2012 | Docket: 60227859

Cited 1 times | Published

have known that the property was stolen. See § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. (2008). Simply put: Singleton was

Parks v. State

54 So. 3d 1079, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 2678, 2011 WL 710164

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 2, 2011 | Docket: 60298234

Cited 1 times | Published

stolen. See § 812.019, Fla. Stat. (2003). Section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (2003), provides that

Morales v. State

35 So. 3d 122, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 6929, 2010 WL 1979276

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 19, 2010 | Docket: 1646472

Cited 1 times | Published

or should have known, that it was stolen. See § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. (2009). "It was up to the jury

Smith v. State

15 So. 3d 849, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 10452, 2009 WL 2244218

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 29, 2009 | Docket: 2588806

Cited 1 times | Published

burglary that took place on January 31, 2007. See § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. (2006) (providing that "proof of

Kittles v. State

897 So. 2d 517, 2005 WL 475341

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 2, 2005 | Docket: 1735355

Cited 1 times | Published

judgment of acquittal. The state relied on section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (2002), to establish that

Capaldo v. State

679 So. 2d 717, 1996 WL 336050

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jun 20, 1996 | Docket: 1215021

Cited 1 times | Published

was stolen if not satisfactorily explained. See § 812.022(3), Fla. Stat. (1995) ("Proof of the purchase

A.O., A JUVENILE v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 10, 2023 | Docket: 67359004

Published

opposite party can be sustained under the law.”); § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. (“[P]roof of possession of property

JOHN GARCIA v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 26, 2023 | Docket: 67270651

Published

property. See § 812.014(1), Fla. Stat. (2013); § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. (2013); Smith v. State, 742 So

In Re: Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases - Report 2019-09

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jan 16, 2020 | Docket: 16761638

Published

emergency. Inferences. Give if applicable. § 812.022(1), Fla. Stat. Proof that a person presented

Joseph v. State

275 So. 3d 1266

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 25, 2019 | Docket: 64720696

Published

is entitled to the inference set forth in section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (2016): Proof of possession

Joseph v. State

275 So. 3d 1266

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 25, 2019 | Docket: 64720697

Published

is entitled to the inference set forth in section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (2016): Proof of possession

TIMOTHY LEE DOBBINS v. STATE OF FLORIDA

275 So. 3d 1260

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 24, 2019 | Docket: 15960204

Published

possession committed the burglary or theft. See § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. (2014) (providing that proof of

A.L. v. State

275 So. 3d 819

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 10, 2019 | Docket: 64719891

Published

use of the statutory inference provided by section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (2017), because A.L. did

A.L. v. State

275 So. 3d 819

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 10, 2019 | Docket: 64719892

Published

use of the statutory inference provided by section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (2017), because A.L. did

A. L. v. STATE OF FLORIDA

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 10, 2019 | Docket: 15897427

Published

use of the statutory inference provided by section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (2017), because A.L.

Quinones v. State

271 So. 3d 1165

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 24, 2019 | Docket: 14988967

Published

should have known the jewelry was stolen. See § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. (2018) (“[P]roof of possession

In Re: Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases-Report 2018-02.

256 So. 3d 1316

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Oct 25, 2018 | Docket: 8081302

Published

emergency.] Inferences. Give if applicable. § 812.022(1), Fla. Stat. Proof that a person presented

C.T. v. State

238 So. 3d 857

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 29, 2017 | Docket: 64674176

Published

inference of guilty knowledge provided by section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (2016), which states that

C.T. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 29, 2017 | Docket: 6235087

Published

inference of guilty knowledge provided by section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (2016), which states

K.P. v. State

230 So. 3d 608

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 17, 2017 | Docket: 60283247

Published

State’s case rested upon the inference in section 812.022, Florida Statutes (2015), that “proof of possession

K.P. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 17, 2017 | Docket: 6225796

Published

State's case rested upon the inference in section 812.022, Florida Statutes (2015), that "proof

JOSEPH DEJESUS v. STATE OF FLORIDA

225 So. 3d 285, 2017 WL 3499925, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 11787

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 16, 2017 | Docket: 6138614

Published

Appellant. 3 . Pursuant to section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (2011), "proof of possession

A.D.P. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 14, 2017 | Docket: 6119789

Published

possession of recently stolen property. See § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. (2014).

Horvath v. State

217 So. 3d 1045, 2017 WL 1709717, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 6185

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 3, 2017 | Docket: 60265612

Published

” This instruction tracks the language of section 812.022, Florida Statutes. The case of Jones v. State

Horvath v. State

217 So. 3d 1045, 2017 WL 1709717, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 6185

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 3, 2017 | Docket: 60265612

Published

” This instruction tracks the language of section 812.022, Florida Statutes. The case of Jones v. State

Jeudy v. State

209 So. 3d 37, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 17579

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 23, 2016 | Docket: 60259201

Published

knowingly obtained or used the subject shotgun. Section 812.022(3), Florida Statutes (2014), creates the statutory

In Re STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES-REPORT NO. 2015-04

190 So. 3d 614, 2016 WL 1460587

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Apr 14, 2016 | Docket: 3053709

Published

emergency.] Inferences. , Give if applicable. § 812.022(1), Fla. Stat. . ■ Proof that a person

Raymond C. Gleason v. State of Florida

188 So. 3d 35, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 3600, 2016 WL 889324

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 9, 2016 | Docket: 3042765

Published

the jury on the presumption provided for in section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (2013), namely that “[p]roof

Hadley v. State

152 So. 3d 848, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 20313, 2014 WL 7106826

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 16, 2014 | Docket: 60245001

Published

correct statement of the law as set forth in section 812.022(3), Florida Statutes (2013), giving the instruction

Midgette v. State

152 So. 3d 767, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 19794, 2014 WL 6832452

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 5, 2014 | Docket: 60244985

Published

stolen property. This instruction is based on section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (2006), which provides

S.M., a child v. State

150 So. 3d 1179, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 18392, 2014 WL 5834702

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 12, 2014 | Docket: 2595476

Published

have known that the property had been stolen.” § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. (2012). “[MJere possession of stolen

In Re STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES—INSTRUCTION 14.2

140 So. 3d 992, 2014 WL 2516096

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jun 5, 2014 | Docket: 57963

Published

stolen. Inferences. Give if applicable. § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. Proof of possession of recently

L.S. v. State

120 So. 3d 55, 2013 WL 3811672, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 11592

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 24, 2013 | Docket: 60234141

Published

stole the firearm other than the provision of section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (2011), which provides

Hughes v. State

81 So. 3d 597, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 3448, 2012 WL 694759

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 6, 2012 | Docket: 2414300

Published

objection was raised as to this argument. Section 812.022(3), Florida Statutes (2009) provides, "Proof

Canady v. State

73 So. 3d 785, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 14055, 2011 WL 3903095

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 7, 2011 | Docket: 2354906

Published

"way below market value for both items." See § 812.022(3), Fla. Stat. (2008) ("Proof of the purchase

HARRIELL v. State

29 So. 3d 372, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 2110, 2010 WL 624146

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 24, 2010 | Docket: 1642923

Published

knew, or should have known, it was stolen. See § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. (2008). Affirmed. MAY and CIKLIN

Dieguez v. State

18 So. 3d 1262, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 15562, 2009 WL 3271230

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 14, 2009 | Docket: 60252053

Published

SUAREZ, J. Affirmed. § 812.022, Fla. Stat. (2008); J.J. v. State, 463 So.2d 1168 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984);

Wilkins v. State

18 So. 3d 8, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 10744, 2009 WL 2382329

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 5, 2009 | Docket: 1640590

Published

known that the pawned items were stolen. See § 812.022(2) and (3), Fla. Stat. (2007).[1] Appellant pawned

M.D.S. v. State

982 So. 2d 1282, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 8422

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 11, 2008 | Docket: 64854934

Published

Acura was “recently stolen.” The inference in section 812.022(2) does not apply under these circumstances

Waldron v. State

979 So. 2d 449, 2008 WL 1829905

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 25, 2008 | Docket: 1714262

Published

possession of stolen property, which is based on section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (2005).[2] The instruction

Driggers v. State

935 So. 2d 1230, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 13436, 2006 WL 2347323

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 11, 2006 | Docket: 64846160

Published

PER CURIAM. See § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. (2001) (providing that “[pjroof of possession of property recently

J.H. v. State

868 So. 2d 1237, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 3744, 2004 WL 574467

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 24, 2004 | Docket: 64829073

Published

evidence and the inference of guilt under section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (2001), for possession

Tatum v. State

857 So. 2d 331, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 15447, 2003 WL 22335030

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 15, 2003 | Docket: 64825891

Published

guilt in dealing in stolen property, based on section 812.022(4), Florida Statutes (1997), without a proper

Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases-Submission 2002-1

850 So. 2d 1272, 28 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 572, 2003 Fla. LEXIS 1146, 2003 WL 21511321

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 3, 2003 | Docket: 64824176

Published

construction site.]] Inferences; give if applicable. § 812.022(1), Fla-Stat. Proof that a person presented false

Youngs v. State

736 So. 2d 85, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 7555, 1999 WL 371326

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 9, 1999 | Docket: 64789054

Published

Responding to this argument, the state relies on section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes, which provides: Proof

M.P.W. v. State

702 So. 2d 591, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 13348

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 3, 1997 | Docket: 64777285

Published

90 So.2d 629, 631 (Fla.1956). In addition, section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes(1993), provides “[p]roof

Adams v. State

693 So. 2d 1031, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 5129, 1997 WL 244253

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 14, 1997 | Docket: 64773772

Published

have known that the property had been stolen.” § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. (1991); see Z.S. v. State, 579

Watson v. State

687 So. 2d 75, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 392, 1997 WL 43854

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 5, 1997 | Docket: 64770652

Published

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. (1995); Horn v. State, 433 So.2d 670 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)

Barfield v. State

613 So. 2d 507, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 159, 1993 WL 5062

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 14, 1993 | Docket: 64693964

Published

objection of defense counsel, pursuant to section 812.022(3), Florida Statutes (1989), the trial judge

State v. Jackson

601 So. 2d 615, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 7227, 1992 WL 139004

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 23, 1992 | Docket: 64668666

Published

v. State, 559 So.2d 742 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990);. § 812.022(2), Fla.Stat. (1989). In attempting to sell the

T.S.R. v. State

596 So. 2d 766, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 3856

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 3, 1992 | Docket: 64666542

Published

v. State, 40 Fla. 480, 25 So. 143 (1898). Section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes, provides that proof of

G.R. v. State

564 So. 2d 207, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 4951, 1990 WL 95475

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 10, 1990 | Docket: 64651636

Published

v. State, 407 So.2d 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); § 812.022(2), Fla.Stat. (1989). Second, we accept the state’s

Turner v. State

560 So. 2d 1342, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 3051, 1990 WL 57814

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 4, 1990 | Docket: 64650362

Published

knew or should have known that it was stolen. Section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (1985), provides: Proof

G.C. v. State

560 So. 2d 1186, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 564, 1990 WL 6486

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 30, 1990 | Docket: 64650332

Published

of suspicion that the car was stolen. See also § 812.022(2), Fla.Stat. (1987). . It would also appear

S.B. v. State

555 So. 2d 407, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2920, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 6970, 1989 WL 149645

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 12, 1989 | Docket: 64647503

Published

have known that the property had been stolen. Section 812.022(3) Florida Statutes (1987). The appellant,

In the Interest of F.W.B. v. State

538 So. 2d 969, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 532, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 957, 1989 WL 14551

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 22, 1989 | Docket: 64640644

Published

stolen radio was found inside it. Although Section 812.022, Florida Statutes (1987), permits the inference

Interest of M.M. v. State

547 So. 2d 139, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 461, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 652, 1989 WL 10988

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 14, 1989 | Docket: 64644140

Published

relied solely on the presumption accorded by section 812.-022, Florida Statutes (1987), and failed to introduce

State v. Grimmage

522 So. 2d 523, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 792, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1166, 1988 WL 24174

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 23, 1988 | Docket: 64633688

Published

intention to rely upon the presumption provided by section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (1985), that an individual

Thompson v. State

480 So. 2d 179, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 24, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 17290

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 17, 1985 | Docket: 64616252

Published

an inference that he stole the property. See § 812.022(2), Fla.Stat. (1983). The proof that defendant

N.C. v. State

478 So. 2d 1142, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2577, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 17008

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 21, 1985 | Docket: 64615727

Published

v. State, 40 Fla. 480, 25 So. 143 (1898). Section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (1983), provides that

Mohler v. State

466 So. 2d 1233, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 950, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13437

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 10, 1985 | Docket: 64611188

Published

especially in view of the presumption under section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (1983), that guilt can

JJ v. State

463 So. 2d 1168

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 26, 1985 | Docket: 1509732

Published

explanation for his being in possession of the moped. § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. (1983). The law is well settled

J.J. v. State

463 So. 2d 1168, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 16727

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 27, 1984 | Docket: 64610025

Published

explanation for his being in possession of the moped. § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. (1983). The law is well settled

P.L.C. v. State

458 So. 2d 800, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2251, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15842

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 23, 1984 | Docket: 64608011

Published

from the possession of recently stolen property. § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. (1981).2 The state contends on

W.R. v. State

450 So. 2d 349, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13269

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 29, 1984 | Docket: 64604887

Published

Carroll, 404 So.2d 844 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); § 812.022(2), Fla.Stat.(1983).

R.D.S. v. State

446 So. 2d 1181, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12413

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 20, 1984 | Docket: 64603514

Published

based solely on the inference provided by Section 812.-022(2), Florida Statutes (1979), without any additional

P.N. v. State

443 So. 2d 193, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 25185

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 13, 1983 | Docket: 64601942

Published

in possession of a recently stolen moped. Section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (1981). When he was stopped

Van Teamer v. State

417 So. 2d 1129, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20841

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 11, 1982 | Docket: 64591647

Published

Std. Jury Instr. (Crim) pp. 135-136 (1981). . § 812.022(1), Fla.Stat. (1979) (failure to return leased

Wright v. State

421 So. 2d 167, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 28137

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 3, 1982 | Docket: 64592957

Published

DCA 1971); § 812.014, Fla.Stat. (Supp.1980); § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. (1979); § 812.041, Fla.Stat. (1979)

R. A. L. v. State

402 So. 2d 1337, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21021

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 1, 1981 | Docket: 64584846

Published

based solely on the inference provided by Section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (1979),1 without any additional

A. R. v. State

393 So. 2d 1174, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19485

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 10, 1981 | Docket: 64580391

Published

property was not satisfactorily explained. See Section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (1979). This determination

McCullough v. State

390 So. 2d 1225, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 18186

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 9, 1980 | Docket: 64579111

Published

unexplained possession of recently stolen goods, Section 812.-022(2), Florida Statutes (1979). State v. Young

McCullough v. State

390 So. 2d 1225, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 18186

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 9, 1980 | Docket: 64579111

Published

unexplained possession of recently stolen goods, Section 812.-022(2), Florida Statutes (1979). State v. Young

P. S. D. v. State

388 So. 2d 1069, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17759

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 23, 1980 | Docket: 64578317

Published

support a finding of guilt on the theft charges. § 812.022(2), Fla.Stat. (1977); State v. Young, 217 So.2d