Home » Theft

Articles Posted in Theft

Published on: | by

Criminal trials often turn on strategic choices made in the moment, and those choices can carry significant evidentiary consequences. One recurring issue involves whether a defendant who does not testify can nonetheless place credibility at issue through statements introduced by the defense. A recent Florida decision addressed this precise question in the context of a burglary prosecution, clarifying when prior convictions may be disclosed to a jury for impeachment purposes. If you are charged with burglary or any other theft crime, you should consider speaking with a Clearwater theft crime defense attorney about your rights

Case Setting

Allegedly, the victim was away from her residence when a home security system alerted her to movement near a sliding glass door, which served as the only entrance from the fenced backyard into the dwelling. She viewed a live video feed, observed an unknown individual inside the home, activated an alarm, and contacted law enforcement.

Reportedly, officers responded to the scene and reviewed surveillance footage showing an individual entering through the sliding glass door, moving through the residence, and exiting quickly once the alarm sounded. The victim later noticed that a jewelry box in a bedroom had been opened and that earrings were missing, with no signs of forced entry.

It is alleged that officers encountered the defendant shortly thereafter in a nearby commercial area wearing clothing consistent with the individual depicted on the security video. Law enforcement detained the defendant, conducted a pat-down, and did not locate any jewelry or other property from the residence.

It is reported that the State charged the defendant with burglary of a dwelling and petit theft. At trial, the defense conceded that the defendant was the person shown on the surveillance footage and did not dispute that the defendant lacked permission to enter the home. The defense theory instead focused on the State’s alleged failure to prove intent to commit an offense inside the dwelling.

Allegedly, during cross-examination of a law enforcement officer, defense counsel elicited testimony that the officer had asked the defendant whether he possessed any jewelry and that the defendant denied having any on his person. Following this exchange, the prosecution requested permission to inform the jury of the defendant’s prior felony and misdemeanor convictions involving dishonesty, arguing that the defense had introduced a hearsay statement subject to impeachment. The court permitted this testimony, and the jury convicted the defendant of burglary. He then appealed.

Impeachment Evidence in Criminal Cases

On appeal, the court reviewed the trial court’s decision to permit impeachment with prior convictions under an abuse of discretion standard, while addressing related evidentiary questions de novo. The court analyzed the interaction between Florida statutes governing hearsay, impeachment of declarants, and the balancing test that excludes relevant evidence when unfair prejudice substantially outweighs probative value.

The court explained that when a party introduces an out-of-court statement for its truth, the declarant’s credibility becomes subject to attack as though the declarant testified at trial. Under Florida law, qualifying prior convictions may be used for impeachment if they involve dishonesty or meet statutory sentencing thresholds. However, such evidence remains subject to exclusion if it poses an undue risk of unfair prejudice.

Applying these principles, the court determined that the defendant’s denial of possessing jewelry constituted self-serving and exculpatory hearsay in the context of burglary and theft charges. The court reasoned that the defense intentionally elicited the statement to support its theory and that the statement invited the jury to assess the defendant’s credibility. Because credibility was placed at issue, the trial court acted within its discretion by allowing impeachment with the number of prior convictions, while withholding details about their nature and issuing limiting instructions.

The court further emphasized that juries retain the authority to accept or reject testimony, even when uncontradicted. The absence of directly conflicting evidence did not remove credibility from consideration. As such, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence.

Consult a Dedicated Clearwater Theft Crime Defense Attorney

If you are facing burglary or theft charges, it is critical to work with counsel who understands how trial strategy intersects with Florida evidence law. The dedicated Clearwater criminal defense attorneys at Hanlon Law can advise you of your rights and help you seek the best outcome available. provide experienced representation to clients throughout Pinellas County and across Florida. You can contact us online or call 727-897-5413 to schedule a confidential consultation.

Continue reading →

by
Posted in: Theft
Published on:
Updated:

Published on: | by

Juvenile theft cases demand exacting proof because even minor evidentiary gaps can mean the difference between a lawful adjudication and a reversible error. When the State alleges grand theft of a motor vehicle, it must do more than show a child was near or inside a stolen car. It must also prove that the specific vehicle taken belonged to the person identified in the charging document. A recent Florida decision reinforces this critical safeguard, making clear that assumptions based on similarity and timing cannot substitute for competent evidence of ownership. If your child is facing theft or delinquency charges, you should speak with a Clearwater juvenile criminal defense attorney who can rigorously challenge the State’s case and protect your child’s future.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, the State filed a delinquency petition accusing the defendant, a juvenile, of grand theft of a motor vehicle, asserting that the defendant stole a Nissan automobile identified as the property of another individual from a residence in Orange County.

Reportedly, the alleged owner testified at the adjudicatory hearing that her red Nissan sedan was taken from outside her home while she was inside, unaware that the keys had been removed from her porch. She further testified that she recovered the vehicle approximately one week later from a police tow yard and observed damage and flat tires upon its return.

Continue reading →

by
Posted in: Theft
Published on:
Updated:

Published on: | by

Generally, if people commit multiple criminal acts, they will be charged and tried for said offenses in a single case. If the crimes do not rely on the same evidence or otherwise overlap, however, they may be tried separately. This is especially true in cases in which evidence of one crime may be prejudicial to a defendant in a hearing for a different offense. In a recent Florida opinion, the court discussed the grounds for severing charges in a theft case in which it ultimately denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss. If you are accused of a theft crime, it is smart to talk to a Clearwater theft crime lawyer attorney as soon as possible.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant faced charges in a two-count superseding indictment, including theft of social security funds and forcibly assaulting a federal officer with a deadly weapon. The charges stemmed from allegations that the defendant’s deceased wife continued to receive Social Security benefits after her death, resulting in overpayments. Surveillance footage showed the defendant negotiating checks made payable to him with his deceased wife’s forged signature. When federal agents went to the defendant’s residence to investigate, he initially denied involvement but later admitted to the transactions.

Reportedly, however, when faced with arrest, the defendant refused to surrender, leading to a confrontation with federal agents where he threatened them with a deadly weapon. After the defendant was indicted, he filed a motion seeking to dismiss the assault charge, arguing it was unduly prejudicial and inflammatory. He also contended that the charges were not of the same or similar character, and the evidence did not overlap.

Continue reading →

Published on: | by

While criminal defendants will often assert their innocence, in some instances, it makes sense for them to enter a guilty plea. For example, a defendant will often plead guilty with the expectation that they will receive a reduced sentence for their convictions. Guilty pleas do not automatically result in lesser sentences, however, as demonstrated in a recent Florida case in which a woman argued that her sentence for identify theft and other crimes was unreasonable. If you are accused of a theft offense, it is wise to confer with a Clearwater theft crime lawyer attorney about your options.

Factual and Procedural Background of the Case

It is alleged that in 2019, a federal grand jury issued a superseding indictment against the defendant, charging her with multiple counts, including conspiracy to commit access device fraud, aggravated identity theft, and possession of unauthorized access devices. The defendant pleaded guilty to two counts, and the government dropped the remaining charges. The presentence investigation report (PSI) detailed the defendant’s criminal activities dating back to December 2014, when she was observed engaging in suspicious behavior at a department store with another woman.

Continue reading →
by
Posted in: Theft
Published on:
Updated:

Published on: | by

Under Florida law, theft crimes are graded, in part, by the value of the object stolen. As such, in many instances, the State is required to prove the market cost of the diverted goods in order to demonstrate the defendant’s guilt. If the State is unable to meet this burden, the defendant should be acquitted. Recently, a Florida court discussed what evidence the State must produce to demonstrate the fair market value of a stolen object in a case in which it ultimately affirmed the defendant’s felony theft conviction. If you are accused of taking someone else’s property in violation of the law, it is wise to talk to a Clearwater theft crime defense attorney about your rights.

Case Background

It is reported that the defendant faced a second-degree felony charge of grand theft for the alleged theft of jewelry in July 2020 from his ex-girlfriend. The stolen items included a watch and a platinum wedding band with diamonds. During the trial,  the ex-girlfriend testified that she purchased the watch in 2004 for approximately $20,000 and the wedding band in 2002 for approximately $2,900.

Allegedly, she further testified that the defendant sold the Rolex watch at a pawnshop, and she identified it by matching the serial number. The State asked the ex-girlfriend about the pawnshop’s asking price for the watch. Defense counsel objected to the question, but the court overruled their objection. During redirect, the ex-girlfriend mentioned that the defendant received $10,000 from the pawnshop for the watch. The defendant moved for acquittal, but the trial court reserved ruling. After the trial, he renewed his motion for acquittal, which the court denied. He was convicted of third-degree felony theft, and he appealed.

Continue reading →

by
Posted in: Theft
Published on:
Updated:

Published on: | by

The Double Jeopardy Clauses in the state and federal Constitutions aim to protect individuals from being unfairly subjected to repeated prosecutions and punishments for the same offense. As such, if a defendant is convicted on multiple theft charges arising out of the same incident, they may be able to successfully argue that one or more of their convictions may be vacated. In a recent Florida case in which the defendant was convicted of multiple theft crimes, the court explained when the Double Jeopardy clauses are triggered and ultimately vacated two of the defendant’s convictions.  If you are charged with a theft offense, it is in your best interest to meet with a Clearwater theft crime defense lawyer about what defenses you may be able to set forth.

History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was charged with burglary, grand theft from a retail merchant, and two counts of petit theft. Following a trial, a jury found him guilty as charged. He appealed, arguing that his two convictions for petit theft arising out of the same incident violated the rule against double jeopardy. The court agreed, and the State acknowledged the error. As such, the court vacated his theft convictions; it otherwise affirmed his remaining convictions without further comment.

Protections Provided by the Double Jeopardy Clause

The Double Jeopardy Clause in both the United States and Florida Constitutions prohibits subjecting an individual to multiple prosecutions, convictions, and punishments for the same criminal offense. In cases involving theft convictions, where the offenses are merely variations of the core offense of theft, having dual convictions based on the same core offense is not permissible. This is because each offense is considered an aggravated form of the underlying offense of theft, and they differ only in terms of degree.

Continue reading →

Published on: | by

People in Florida are generally aware that taking another individual’s property without permission is illegal, but they often lack an understanding of the precise acts an individual may be charged with for stealing or otherwise depriving a person of property. For example, many people think of burglary as involving theft, when in actuality, there is a substantial difference between theft and burglary in Florida. If you being investigated for or accused of committing a crime, it is smart to meet with a capable Clearwater criminal defense lawyer to evaluate your potential defenses.

What’s the Difference Between Theft and Burglary in Florida? 

Pursuant to Florida law, burglary is the act of entering a building with the intent to commit a criminal act inside, unless the property is open to the public or the defendant was invited or is licensed to enter. Notwithstanding entrants that are invited or licensed, it also constitutes burglary to secretly remain in a building or stay after permission to remain has been withdrawn, with the intent to commit a crime, or to stay to commit or attempt to commit a forcible felony. While burglary may involve theft, stealing property is not a statutory element of the offense.

A person that knowingly uses or obtains, or attempts to use or obtain someone else’s property with the intent to deprive the person of his or her property rights or benefits, or appropriate the property for his or her own use, commits theft. Such acts constitute theft regardless of whether the offender intends to temporarily or permanently take the property. Continue reading →

Published on: | by

In order to obtain a conviction in a criminal case, the State must present evidence sufficient to establish that the defendant committed each element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. If the State’s case is severely lacking in competent evidence, a defendant may be able to obtain an acquittal, and if an acquittal is unjustly denied, it may constitute grounds for a reversal of a guilty verdict. In a recent Florida ruling, a court explained the grounds for granting an appeal in a case in which a defendant who was charged with numerous theft crimes filed a motion for judgment of acquittal that was denied. If you are charged with theft crimes, you may be able to avoid a conviction, and you should talk to a seasoned Clearwater criminal defense attorney about your options.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant was charged with burglary, robbery, and other offenses. During the trial, the State presented evidence that the defendant occasionally worked for the victim, who was found bound and beaten in his home. The State also showed footage of the defendant driving the victim’s forklift around town, and the victim’s son testified that his father did not let anyone borrow the forklift. Finally, a photograph taken by the defendant showed that he was on the victim’s property on the day the crimes occurred. At the close of the State’s case, the defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal. His motion was denied, and he was convicted as charged, after which he appealed.

Reviewing a Denial of Acquittal Under Florida Law

On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because the State failed to present sufficient evidence that he committed the charged offenses. The court explained that appellate courts review a trial court’s denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal de novo to determine whether the evidence is adequate to sustain a conviction. Further, the court explained that Florida courts recently modified their standard for reviewing evidence. Continue reading →

by
Posted in: Theft
Published on:
Updated:

Published on: | by

A criminal defendant may face grave penalties if he or she is convicted of using a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. Depending on the nature of the accusations against the defendant, however, he or she may be able to seek dismissal of the charges on the grounds that they are unconstitutional. A Florida court recently explained what a criminal defendant must demonstrate in order to have such charges dismissed in a case in which the defendant was convicted of numerous offenses arising out of a robbery. If you are charged with theft crimes or any other criminal offense, it is in your best interest to hire an aggressive Clearwater criminal defense attorney to help you fight to protect your rights.

Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant was indicted and charged with numerous crimes, including Hobbs Act robbery in violation of federal law, and carrying a firearm which was used during the robbery, which was deemed a crime of violence. He pleaded guilty to those two charges, after which he was sentenced to fifty-seven months imprisonment for the robbery charge and one-hundred-and-eighty months imprisonment for the related firearm charge. He subsequently filed a motion, arguing that his conviction of possessing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence was unconstitutional, as Hobbs Act robbery was not categorically defined as a crime of violence under the relevant statute. The court found that the defendant’s claims were without merit and denied his motion.

Crimes of Violence Under Florida Law

The court explained that the relevant statute stated that it was a crime for anyone to use a firearm during the commission of, or to possess a firearm in furtherance of, a crime of violence. Under the elements clause of the law, an offense is considered a crime of violence if it is a felony that has an element of the use or threatened or attempted use of force against another person or property.

Continue reading →