JAMES W. MOONEYHAM, 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 obtaining money under false pretenses, finding insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict.
No, the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction.
“The pretense consisted of a statement that he owned a yoke of steers, which he offered as security for credit.”
Describes the alleged false pretense leading to the conviction.
Previewing 1 of 4 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was convicted of obtaining money under false pretenses by claiming ownership of steers to secure credit. The state's case relied heavily…
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 Ownership Of Property cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam
James W. Mooneyham was convicted of obtaining money under false pretenses and sentenced to one year in the State prison.
The pretense consisted of a statement that he owned a yoke of steers, which he offered as security for credit.
His ownership of the steers at the time the statement was made was attested not only by the accused himself, but by a former owner of the steers who testified as to délivery, and by other non-interested persons. The State’s case depends almost wholly upon one witness who claimed to have owned the steers at that time, and he admits that negotiations for the sale were made with Mooneyham, and the language there used was such as-may have left Mooneyham under the impression that a sale had been made. So strong was this impression that the witness felt impelled to visit Mooneyham later to say that the trade was off. In the meantime the steers had been pledged as security.
As to the actual delivery of the steers at the time of the negotiation for the sale, the evidence points only one way, and that supports the defendant’s case.
Upon this evidence we cannot sustain the verdict, and the judgment is reversed.
Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Cockrell. Hocker and Whitfield, J. J., concur.