## Facts

- Russell Jones bought a pickup truck from his friend, William C. Bartlett, and took possession while paying the price in installments.
- During the installment period, Jones also borrowed money from Bartlett in a separate, unrelated loan arrangement.
- Jones finished paying for the truck, but the certificate of title still remained in Bartlett’s name.
- Jones did not repay the unrelated loan, and Bartlett took the truck back, believing he still had an interest in the vehicle and could repossess it to secure repayment.
- Jones suspected Bartlett might claim an interest in the truck and did not report it stolen for more than two weeks.
- A sheriff’s deputy testified about a conversation with Bartlett regarding the agreement between Bartlett and Jones; when the deputy said he did not think Bartlett could keep the truck because Jones had paid for it, Bartlett responded that he was not returning the truck until Jones paid what he owed.
- The State prosecuted Bartlett, and he was convicted of grand theft (the truck), petit theft (items inside the truck), and trespass (entering property leased by Jones to retrieve the truck).
- At the close of the State’s case, Bartlett moved for judgment of acquittal on the grand theft charge, arguing the State failed to prove he had the intent to steal at the time he took the truck; the trial court denied the motion, and Bartlett appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the State presented sufficient evidence that Bartlett took the truck with the required intent to steal, where uncontroverted evidence showed he held title and acted under an apparent good-faith claim of right.
2. Whether that claim-of-right theory required reversal of the convictions for petit theft of the truck’s contents and for trespass.

## Decision

- The court reversed the grand theft conviction for the truck based on insufficient evidence of intent to steal.
- The court affirmed the petit theft conviction for the truck’s contents.
- The court affirmed the trespass conviction.

## Legal Principles

- Florida theft (larceny) requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the taking was *animo furandi*—with intent to steal.
- A person who takes property under a bona fide, good-faith belief that he has a right to it lacks the criminal intent required for theft, even if the belief is mistaken.
- When the evidence shows the taking is consistent with honest conduct (though possibly wrong), the State has not met its burden to prove theft intent.
- A claim of right to the vehicle does not automatically excuse taking other property inside it when there is no claim of right to those items.
- A claim-of-right theory as to the truck does not bar liability for trespass committed while retrieving it.

## Conclusion

The First District Court of Appeal held that the State’s own evidence showed Bartlett held legal title to the truck and retook it under an apparent claim of right tied to Jones’s unpaid loan, making the taking consistent with noncriminal intent and defeating proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to steal the truck; accordingly, the grand theft conviction was reversed, while the petit theft conviction for the contents and the trespass conviction were affirmed because Bartlett had no similar claim of right to the personal items and the entry onto Jones’s leased property supported the trespass charge.


Bartlett v. State, 765 So. 2d 799 (2000)