Brose v. State

In affirming the conviction for dealing in stolen property, the majority reasons:

“ ‘Evidence of theft only, with the intent personally to put the stolen item or items to normal use, constitutes only the crime of theft and not the crime of trafficking or dealing in stolen property.... ’ State v. Camp, 596 So.2d 1055, 1057 (Fla.1992). The State, however, introduced significant evidence tending to show that the stolen property, that being 20 or 30 fishing poles transported in a garbage can in the middle of the night by Appellant, was not for normal use. Further there is no minimum number of…