14.2 DEALING IN STOLEN PROPERTY (FENCING)
Official jury instruction text reproduced for information. It is not legal advice; the instruction given in a case depends on the facts and the court.
- Instruction
- 14.2
- Statute
- § 812.019(1), Fla. Stat.
- Edition
- Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, complete set published by The Florida Bar, updated October 9, 2026
- Official source
- The Florida Bar: criminal jury instructions
Elements
Quoted word for word from the official text. Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, complete set published by The Florida Bar, updated October 9, 2026.
To prove the crime of Dealing in Stolen Property (Fencing), the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Defendant) [trafficked in] [endeavored to traffic in] (property alleged).
2. (Defendant) knew or should have known that (property alleged) was stolen.
Further findings
Special findings, enhancements, inferences and exceptions the instruction gives when they apply, word for word.
If you find that the State has proven both theft and dealing in stolen property, you must then decide whether both offenses were in connection with one scheme or course of conduct. “One scheme or course of conduct” means that there was no meaningful disruption of the defendant’s conduct by either an interval of time or a set of circumstances.
If you find that both theft and dealing in stolen property were proven by the State, and the offenses were in connection with one scheme or course of conduct, then the defendant must be convicted of either theft or dealing in stolen property. In making your decision, you must determine whether the defendant is more of a common thief or more of a trafficker. This determination rests on the defendant’s intended use of the stolen property. The defendant is a “common thief” if [he][she] had the intent to appropriate the property to [his] [her] own use or to the use of any person not entitled to the use of the property. The defendant is a “trafficker” if [he][she] had the intent to traffic in the stolen property. If you find the defendant more of a “common thief,” then you are to find the defendant guilty of theft only. If you find the defendant more of a “trafficker,” then you are to find the defendant guilty of dealing in stolen property only.
Lesser-included offenses
As the instruction lists them, word for word.
DEALING IN STOLEN PROPERTY — TRAFFICKING — 812.019(1)
| CATEGORY ONE | CATEGORY TWO | FLA. STAT. | INS. NO. |
|---|---|---|---|
| None | Grand theft — third degree | 812.014(2)(c) | 14.1 |
| Petit theft — first degree | 812.014(2)(e) | 14.1 | |
| Petit theft — second degree | 812.014(3)(a) | 14.1 |
Related practice page
Official source: The Florida Bar: criminal jury instructions
Official jury instruction text reproduced for information. It is not legal advice; the instruction given in a case depends on the facts and the court.