EUGENE ROGERS HEATH, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Eugene Rogers Heath appealed his conviction for uttering a forged check, arguing insufficient evidence of guilt. The appellate court agreed, finding the state failed to prove Heath knew the check was forged, an essential element of the offense, and reversed the conviction.
The court reversed, holding that the state failed to present sufficient evidence of Heath's knowledge that the check was forged. Possession of a recently stolen check does not create a presumption of guilty knowledge for the crime of uttering a forgery.
[1] To convict for uttering a forged instrument, the state must prove the defendant's knowledge that the instrument was forged and the intent to defraud.
[2] Possession of a recently stolen negotiable instrument does not, by itself, create a presumption of guilty knowledge for the crime of uttering a forgery.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“To convict for uttering a forgery, the state had to prove that Heath knew the check was forged and that he had it cashed with that knowledge and an intent to defraud.”
Establishes the required elements of proof for uttering a forgery, particularly the essential requirement of proving the defendant's knowledge
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTim Arini's checkbook was stolen from his truck three days before the check at issue was cashed. Heath was found in possession of a check bearing Arin…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Uttering A Forged Check cases and more on FLexlaw
ERVIN, Judge.
Heath appeals his conviction for uttering a forged check, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. We agree the state failed to present sufficient evidence of Heath’s knowledge that the check found in his possession was forged, an essential element of the offense, and reverse.
Three days before Heath caused the check to be cashed, a truck belonging to Tim Arini, the owner of the check, was burglarized, and Arini’s checkbook was taken from it. At trial, Arini identified the check, bearing his name as the maker, made payable to Heath, and endorsed by Daniel Mady.. Arini denied both signing his name and knowing Heath. Mady testified that at Heath’s request he cashed a check at a Jacksonville bank because Heath, a visitor, did not have a local account.
Detective Lee, a defense witness, testified that the check was neither processed for fingerprints nor submitted for a handwriting analysis. Appellant’s explanation for his possession of the check was that, while hitchhiking into Jacksonville, he was given a ride by a man who identified himself as Tim Arini. Heath stated he sold his tent to the man in exchange for the check. At the conclusion of all the evidence, appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal was renewed and denied.
To convict for uttering a forgery, the state had to prove that Heath knew the check was forged and that he had it cashed with that knowledge and an intent to defraud. The state proved only that the check was forged and that Heath had possession of it and caused it to be cashed. There was no evidence, circumstantial or direct, of guilty knowledge. Possession of the recently stolen check did not give rise to a presumption that Heath uttered a forgery. See Graham v. State, 229 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969) and Taylor v. State, 241 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970). A conviction of uttering a forgery requires a different standard of proof than that required for conviction of the theft-related crimes. In Graham and Taylor, the courts concluded that the presumption did not apply where the offense charged was receiving stolen goods. We believe the element of knowledge which the state must prove for that crime is similar to the element of knowledge it must prove to convict for uttering a forgery. See Taylor, supra, where the two crimes and the proof of knowledge required to convict under each were compared.
On the record before us, it is clear the state presented no evidence that Heath knew the check was forged. See Hill v. State, 209 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968). Therefore, the judgment of conviction and sentence are reversed, and, because the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction, the cause is remanded with directions that Heath be discharged. See McArthur v. Nourse, 369 So. 2d 578 (Fla.1979).
MILLS, C. J., and SHIVERS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brown v. State, 426 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…strument that because the only evidence against the defendant was that he had possession of a forged check and caused it to be cashed, yet offered a reasonable explanation for its possession, the evidence was insufficient to convict. Heath v. State, 382 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). We observed, due to the explanation offered, and the absence of any other evidence of guilty knowledge, such as a handwriting analysis, that possession of the stolen check did not give rise to an inference that the appellant kno…
-
Linn v. State, 921 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…e hypothesis of innocence that he lacked knowledge that the instrument was forged requires the entry of a judgment of acquittal unless the State has presented competent evidence inconsistent with the defendant’s theory of events. See Heath v. State, 382 So. 2d 391, 392 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) (holding that State failed to prove defendant knew check had been forged where evidence failed to rebut defendant’s story that he sold tent to hitchhiker in return for check); Lampley v. State, 214 So. 2d 515, 516 (Fla. 3d D…
-
Ginn v. State, 26 So. 3d 706 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…mony accounted for these facts and that the -State had failed to introduce any evidence inconsistent with Linn’s explanation. Id. Accordingly, this court reversed Linn’s conviction and remanded for his discharge. Id. at 836; see also Heath v. State, 382 So. 2d 391, 392 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) (holding that State failed to prove the defendant knew the check had been forged when the evidence failed to rebut his story that he sold a tent to a hitchhiker in return for check); Lampley v. State, 214 So. 2d 515, 517 (Fl…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Nadean O. McARTHUR v. Nourse, 369 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 1979)
- Graham v. State, 229 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Taylor v. State, 241 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- Hill v. State, 209 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)