JOE MONTERESI
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction for receiving embezzled money because it did not prove the defendant had guilty knowledge.
A trusted employee embezzled approximately $9,514.30 from his employer over several years and gave it to the appellant to play a number game. The appe…
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 Guilty Knowledge cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is from a conviction, under Sec. 812.11, Fla. Stat., 1941, F.S.A., for receiving certain money with knowledge that same was embezzled. The only question is whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction.
*490The evidence presents an ugly picture demonstrating how vice and gambling will destroy legitimate business in a community if permitted to carry on its evil trade. Here a trusted employee, over a period of years — from day to day, misappropriated about $9,514.30 of his employer’s money and gave it to appellant to play a number game commonly known as Bolita. Appellant would call upon the employee just before or after the usual working hours to get the money. The sums ranged from one to three hundred dollars per week. In the meantime all winnings were played back into the game. Finally "the employer was called to meet an over-draft and learned, for the first time, of the embezzlement.
It was necessary for the State to show that appellant knew or knew of such facts as would put a man of ordinary intelligence and caution on inquiry that the money was embezzled. In this regard this statute is similar to the companion law of receiving stolen property. Sec. 811.16, Fla. Stat., 1941, F.S.A.
We find a total lack of evidence to meet the announced rule. We cannot attach guilty knowledge to appellant simply because the money was passed to him out of the usual hours of business and out of the presence of others. The evidence, in its present state, is insufficient to sustain a conviction. The-judgment is reversed and a new trial is granted.
Reversed.
THOMAS, C. J., TERRELL and BARNS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mayer v. State, 231 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)…the defendant had knowledge that [*542] the pistol was stolen property, or knowledge of facts which would have put him, as a man of ordinary intelligence and caution, on inquiry as to its stolen character. See Monteresi v. State, 1948, 160 Fla. 489, 35 So. 2d 582. Mr. Prager testified for the state that to the “untrained eye” there was nothing about the gun’s appearance which would readily distinguish it from any other similar type pistol. The state having failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt these ess…
-
Liebler v. State, 327 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…cious to put a person of ordinary intelligence and caution upon inquiry.” Johnson v. State, 127 Fla. 100, 172 So. 708. See also Franklin v. State, 66 Fla. 213, 63 So. 418; Cortes v. State, 135 Fla. 589, 185 So. 323; Monteresi v. State, 160 Fla. 489, 35 So. 2d 582. Cf. State v. Graham, Fla. 1970, 238 So. 2d 618. On consideration of this appeal we find no reversible error has been shown. There was substantial competent evidence to support the judgment of conviction. The circumstances of the transaction as rev…