CHARLES COOK, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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 Florida Supreme Court reversed a conviction, holding that the indictment was insufficient because it failed to adequately apprise the defendant of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
No, the indictment was insufficient because it failed to allege that anyone was deceived by the false promise and did not specify the ownership of the goods. It also did not meet the requirements of the relevant statute for alleging a distinct statutory offense.
“The indictment charges merely that Charles Cook “by a false promise and with at the time intent to injure and defraud one L. A. Briles did then and there obtain from said L. A. Briles goods of the value of three dollars, contrary,” etc.”
This quote states the core of the indictment that the court found insufficient.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCharles Cook was indicted for obtaining goods through a false promise with intent to defraud. The indictment alleged that Cook, by a false promise and…
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 False Promise cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam :
The indictment charges merely that Charles Cook “by a false promise and with at the time intent to injure and defraud one L. A. Briles did then and there obtain from said L. A. Briles goods of the value of three dollars, contrary,” etc. The motion in arrest should have been granted.
We are unaided by a brief in behalf of the indictment, but from its verbiage we assume it was based upon Chapter 4032 of the Laws of 1891. There is no allegation that any one was deceived by the false promise nor as to the ownership of the goods, and that these allegations are necessary under the “false pretence” statute, R. S. Section 2465, has been held by this court in Pendry v. State, 18 Fla. 191, and Strickland v. State, decided at this term. The second subdivision of Chapter 4032 requires as an element of the offence a written contract to do or perform an act or service. If the first subdivision of Chapter 4032, the language of which the indictment follows intends to create a distinct substantive statutory offense, there is necessity for the use of further and particular words by the pleader to sufficiently apprize the person of the “nature and cause of the accusation against him.” Reyes v. State, 34 Fla. 181, 15 South. Rep. 875.
The judgment is reversed with directions to sustain the motion in arrest.
Shackleford, C. J., and Cockrell and Whitfield, JJ., concur. Taylor, Hockbr and Parkhill, JJ., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ex parte Garvey, 84 Fla. 583 (Fla. 1922)…proper endorsements on the cheek when not supplied by allegations that the check was duly presented and dishonored renders the information wholly insufficient to allege an offense under the statute. See Reyes v. State, 34 Fla. 181; Cook v. State, 51 Fla. 36; [*589] Sec. 11, Declaration of Rights, Florida Constitution. For this reason the petitioner should have been discharged; therefore the validity of the statute need not be considered. Reversed for a discharge of the petitioner. Browne, C. J., and…
-
Pruitt v. State, 75 Fla. 448 (Fla. 1918)…was not deceived, and deception is an essential element of the statutory crime of obtaining money by false pretenses. See Ladd v. State, 17 Fla. 215; Pendry v. State, 18 Fla. 191; Strickland v. State, 51 Fla. 129, 40 South. Rep. 178; Cook v. State, 51 Fla. 36, 40 South. Rep. 490. ’ It does not'follow that because a man parts with his money in exchange for á false token that he is deceived by the pretéhse. We think that the indictment in other respects was sufficient. It was unnecessary to set but m hae…
-
Hardy Webb v. State, 69 Fla. 697 (Fla. 1915)…ut the substance of it. Ladd v. State, 17 Fla. 215; Jones v. State, 22 Fla. 532; Moulie v. State, 37 Fla. 321, 20 South. Rep. 554; Anderson v. State, 38 Fla. 3, 20 South. Rep. 765; Strickland v. State, 51 Fla. 129, 40 South. Rep. 178; Cook v. State, 51 Fla. 36, 36 South. Rep. 490. The indictment should also have described with greater particularity the goods alleged to have been obtained. This precaution is necessary to avoid subjecting the defendant to another prosecution for the same .offense. •The ju…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Reyes v. State, 34 Fla. 181 (Fla. 1894)
- Augustus S. Pendry v. State, 18 Fla. 191 (Fla. 1881)