LUKE WILLIAMS, 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.
Defendant's conviction for obtaining property by worthless check was reversed in one case because the payee knew of insufficient funds at the time of the check, which is an express statutory exception under Fla. Stat. § 832.05(4)(a), but affirmed in the other case.
No crime for giving a worthless check occurs when the payee knows the drawee lacks sufficient funds at the time of delivery.
[1] A payee's knowledge at the time of check delivery that the drawee lacks sufficient funds bars criminal prosecution under Fla. …
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Section 832.05(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1991) expressly provides that no crime may be charged with respect to the giving of a check if the payee knows that the drawee does not have sufficient funds on deposit or credit to ensure payment.”
Court explaining the statutory exception that bars prosecution for worthless check when payee has knowledge of insufficient funds.
Defendant gave worthless checks to purchase used vehicles in two separate transactions. In one case, the defendant explicitly told the salesman there …
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 Insufficient Funds cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant was charged with one count of obtaining property in return for a worthless check, contrary to section 832.05, Florida Statutes (1991), in each of two separate informations. In both cases, the defendant had given a worthless check in order to purchase a used vehicle. The defendant agreed to consolidate both infor-mations, and have a non-jury trial. In case number 89-8823, the used car salesman admitted that at the time of delivery of the check, the defendant told him there were insufficient funds in the account to cover the amount of the check, but had assured him that he would transfer the funds from another account. After consulting with management, the salesman accepted the check and the sale was consummated. Section 832.05(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1991) expressly provides that no crime may be charged with respect to the giving of a check if the payee knows that the drawee does not have sufficient funds on deposit or credit to ensure payment. See also Rigaud v. State, 404 So. 2d 791 (Fla.3d DCA 1981). Consequently, defendant’s conviction for obtaining property in return for a worthless check in case number 89-8823 is reversed.
The defendant’s claims as to case number 88-36266 are without merit.
Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.