JOHN V. DENTON, 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 for issuing a bad check, finding that the trial court improperly excluded evidence crucial to the defendant's defense. The ruling highlights the importance of allowing defendants to present evidence that they had reason to believe their drafts would be paid.
Yes, the trial court erred by excluding testimony about the payment of previous drafts. This testimony was relevant to the crucial issue of whether the defendant had reason to believe the draft in controversy would be paid.
“One of the main issues in a trial of this statutory offense is whether the defendant had “reason to believe from an existing contract or from previous dealings with the firm, that such draft would be paid.””
Establishes the central legal question the court focused on.
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 issuing a draft without sufficient funds and failing to make restitution within 24 hours. A key issue was whet…
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.
Whitfield, J.
The plaintiff in error was convicted of the statutory offense of issuing a draft drawn upon a firm in payment for goods without having sufficient money on deposit with such firm to pay the draft, or reason to believe from an existing contract or from previous dealings with the firm that such draft would be paid, and upon non-payment of the draft did not within twenty-four hours after notice of the presentation and non-payment make full and complete restitution by returning the consideration received for such draft, or by paying the amount. Chap. 5486 Acts of 1905.
One of the main issues in a trial of this statutory offense is whether the defendant had “reason to believe from an existing contract or from previous dealings with the firm, that such draft would be paid.” See Whitney v. State, 63 Fla. 53, 58 South. Rep. 230.
The court sustained objections to testimony of the complaining witness Hawkins as to the payment of drafts previously drawn by the defendant. This deprived the defendant of the advantage of such testimony from the complaining witness as bearing on the vital question whether the defendant had reason to believe the draft in controversy would be paid in due course.
The uncontradicted evidence shows that Denton drew drafts upon Denton & Company, which by an arrangement with the firm of Schneider & Company, were taken up by them, the drafts being drawn against a shipment of vegetables consigned to them. The only basis for a criminal liability is evidence of a telegram to the effect that no more drafts would be honored upon the Hawkins crop, and that thereafter the draft, the non-payment of which, is the act charged, was drawn to Hawkins upon a shipment of his crop. Denton testified that drafts to Hawkins were subsequently drawn and paid, and, over objection made, upon cross-examination, admitted that thereafter drafts to Hawkins and to other parties were not paid. This upon the slight affirmative evidence as to criminality shown upon this record constitutes error. The judgment is reversed.
Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Cockrell and Hocker, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Green v. State, 190 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)…v. State, 1932, 104 Fla. 520, 140 So. 309; West v. State, 1939, 140 Fla. 421, 191 So. 771; Adams v. State, 1943, 153 Fla. 68, 13 So. 2d 610. And this is true even though the offenses are similar or of like nature. Denton v. State, 1913, 66 Fla. 87, 62 So. 914; Suarez v. State, 95 Fla. 42, 115 So. 519; Boyett v. State, 1928, 95 Fla. 597, 116 So. 476; Varnum v. State, 1939, 137 Fla. 438, 188 So. 346; Padgett v. State, Fla.1951, 53 So. 2d 106; Fastow v. State, Fla.1951, 54 So. 2d 110; Smith v. State, Fla.19…
-
Coston v. State, 139 Fla. 250 (Fla. 1939)…anti inadmissible. See Varnum v. State, opinion filed April 28; 1939, not yet reported; Hartman v. State, 121 Fla. 627, 164 So. 354; Gunnels v. State, 96 Fla. 659, 118 So. 919; Boyett v. State, 95 Fla. 597, 116 So. 476; Gafford v. State, 66 Fla. 87, 62 So. 914; Gafford v. State, 79 Fla. 581, 84 So. 602; Denton v. State, 66 Fla. 87, 62 So. 914; Suarez v. State, 95 Fla. 42, 115 So. 519; Langford v. State, 33 Fla. 233, 14 So. 815; Roberson v. State, 40 Fla. 509, 24 So. 474; Nickels v. State, 90 Fla. 659, 106…1 / 2
-
Shep Kennedy v. State, 140 Fla. 124 (Fla. 1939)…Gafford v. State, 79 Fla. 581, 84 So. 602; Varnum v. State, 137 Fla. 438, 188 So. 346; Hartman v. State, 121 Fla. 627, 164 So. 354; Gunnels v. State, 96 Fla. 659, 118 So. 919; Boyett v. State, 95 Fla. 597, 116 So. 476; Gafford v. State, 66 Fla. 87, 62 So. 914; Denton v. State, 66 Fla. 87, 62 So. 914; Suarez v. State, 95 Fla. 42, 115 So. 519; Landlord v. State, 33 Fla. 233, 14 So. 815; Roberson v. State, 40 Fla. 509, 24 So. 474; Nickels v. State, 90 Fla. 659, 106 So. 479; Presley v. State, 63 Fla. 37, 57…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Whitney v. State, 63 Fla. 53 (Fla. 1912)