A. J. REVELS, 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 affirmed a conviction for uttering a forged instrument, holding that the crime is complete upon uttering the forged document, regardless of whether anyone was actually defrauded.
Yes, the evidence was sufficient. The crime of uttering a forged instrument is complete upon the utterance of the forged document, irrespective of whether any person was actually defrauded.
“It is sufficient to say that we have given the- same a careful examination, and are of the opinion that it is amply sufficient to support the verdict.”
The court's assessment of the evidence supporting the jury's verdict.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff in error was convicted of uttering a forged instrument. He admitted to uttering the instrument but argued that since no one was defraude…
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 Instrument cases and more on FLexlaw
Shackleford, J.
— The plaintiff in error was tried and convicted of uttering a forged instrument, and seeks relief here by writ of error. The only assignment argued is the one based upon the overruling of the motion for a new trial, and the only grounds of such motion insisted upon are those which question the sufficiency of the evi-i dence to support the verdict. We confine ourselves to the consideration of the grounds argued. Johnson v. State, 55 Fla. 41, 46 South. Rep. 174.
It would be a profitless task to attempt to set out the evidence or even to give a synopsis of it. It is sufficient to say that we have given the-same a careful examination, and are of the opinion that it is amply sufficient to support the verdict. In fact, the plaintiff in error prác tically admits in his own testimony that he uttered a forged instrument, but it is contended that, since no one was actually defrauded thereby, the elements of the crime charged were not proven, therefore the conviction was not warranted. This contention is untenable. Hawkins v. State, 28 Fla. 363, 9 South. Rep. 652. Also see King v. State, 43 Fla. 211, 31 South. Rep. 254.
The judgment must be affirmed.
Whitfield, C. J., and Cockrell, J., concur;
Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Will Blackwell and Robert Blackwell v. The State of Floirda, 79 Fla. 709 (Fla. 1920)…assignments of error is based upon the overruling of the motion for a new trial, an appellate court will consid'er only such grounds of the motion as are argued.” Lindsey v. State, 67 Fla. 111. See also Smith, v. State, 65 Fla. 56; Revels v. State, 62 Fla. 83; Johnson v. State, 55 Fla. 41; Colson v. State, 51 Fla. 19. This case involving human life we will depart from the usual custom and consider the eighth assignment of error based on the refusal of the court to give the requested charge on the defens…
-
Collin Smith v. State, 65 Fla. 56 (Fla. 1913)…cond, which we temporarily passed and which is based upon the overruling of the motion for a new trial. This motion consist® of five grounds. Following our established practice, we consider only such grounds as are argued before us. Revels v. State, 62 Fla. 83, 56 South. Rep. 416. The fifth ground is based upon the refusal of the trial court to give a certain requested instruction. We cannot consider' this ground, as it appears only in such motion. As we have repeatedly held, a refusal of an instruction c…
-
Gus Revels v. State, 64 Fla. 432 (Fla. 1912)…evidence to sustain the [*437] verdict. Following our established rule, we consider only the grounds of the motion which are argued. Johnson v. State, 55 Fla. 41, 46 South. Rep. 174; McCall v. State, 55 Fla. 108, 46 South. Rep. 321; Revels v. State, 62 Fla. 83, 56 South. Rep. 416. We have carefully examined all the evidence and are of the opinion tlial; it is amply sufficient to support the verdict. This being true, we must refuse to disturb it. See Bexley v. State, 59 Fla. 6, 51 South. Rep. 278. Judgmen…
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
- King v. State, 43 Fla. 211 (Fla. 1901)
- Johnson v. State, 55 Fla. 41 (Fla. 1908)
- Hawkins v. State, 28 Fla. 363 (Fla. 1891)