LEONARD RANDALL, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
The appellate court affirmed a conviction for false acknowledgment of a signature by a notary public. The court held that the jury instructions adequately covered the intent element, and thus the trial court did not err in refusing the defendant's requested jury instructions on specific intent.
No, the trial court did not err in refusing the requested jury instructions. The instructions that were given adequately covered the intent element required for the offense.
[1] A notary public commits a felony of the third degree when they falsely or fraudulently take or receive an acknowledgment of a signature on a written instrument.
[2] A jury instruction that requires the state to prove the defendant knew the signature was not that of the person represented and knew the person acknowledging the signatur…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Any notary public in this state ... who falsely takes or receives an acknowledgment of the signature on any written instrument shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree....”
This quote states the statute under which the defendant was convicted.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLeonard Randall, a notary public, was convicted of violating a Florida statute that criminalizes falsely taking or receiving an acknowledgment of a si…
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 Elements Of A Crime cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Randall appeals his conviction for false acknowledgment of a signature. We affirm.
Randall was convicted of violating section 117.09(2), Florida Statutes (1981) which provides, in part, that “Any notary public in this state ... who falsely takes or receives an acknowledgment of the signature on any written instrument shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree....” He contends on appeal that the trial court erred by refusing his requested instructions on specific intent.1 We disagree.
The trial court twice instructed the jury as follows:
Before you can find Leonard Randall guilty ... the state must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
One, that Leonard Randall was a [njotary [pjublic on the date alleged in the [¡Information.
Two, that Leonard Randall falsely or fraudulently did take or receive an acknowledgment of a signature, to wit: Bonnie Paul.
Three, that Leonard Randall took the above acknowledgment on the written instrument, to wit: service of process. Four, that Leonard Randall knew Bonnie Paul.
Five, that Leonard Randall knew that the signature on the written instrument was not that of Bonnie Paul, and Six, that Leonard Randall knew that the person who acknowledged the signature of Bonnie Paul was not Bonnie Paul.
This instruction adequately covered the intent issue.2 See Wilson v. State, 284 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973), quashed on other grounds, 294 So. 2d 327 (Fla.1974). In such a situation the refusal to give a requested special instruction is not error. Brown v. State, 423 So. 2d 599, 600 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Accordingly, the conviction is
Affirmed.
. Randall also contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal. We find this point to be without merit.
. Defense counsel himself, in arguing for the requested instructions, characterized section 117.09(2) by saying, "It says when you know it’s not the person and you go ahead and do it anyhow, then you are committing a felony." That same characterization was provided to the jury in the instruction given.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Sailer, 645 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…falsely, fraudulently and acknowledgment — are terms of common usage, and can be given their plain and ordinary meaning. Florida courts have addressed section 117.09 previously. The Florida Bar v. Farinas, 608 So. 2d 22 (Fla.1992); Randall v. State, 491 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Walker v. City of Jacksonville, 360 So. 2d 52 [*1116] (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). The Farinas court relied on the holding in Walker to state that the signatory must acknowledge before the notary public that he or she executed the docume…
Authorities Cited
- Wilson v. State, 294 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 1974)
- City Nat'l Bank OF Miami Beach v. Overstreet, 284 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Fininvest Invs., Ltd. v. Metro. Dade Cnty. & Malvolio, N.V., 423 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Earnest James Brown v. State, 423 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)