J. L. CROFT, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
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.
J. L. Croft was convicted in circuit court of conspiracy to commit embezzlement of an automobile. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that the indictment failed to charge any offense under Florida law because it alleged a conspiracy to embezzle property, which is not a valid crime in Florida.
The indictment fails to charge any offense against the laws of Florida and therefore the motion in arrest of judgment should have been granted. The conviction is reversed and the defendant is discharged.
“The indictment totally fails to charge any offense against the laws of Florida, and therefore, the motion should have been granted and the defendant discharged.”
The court's holding that the indictment was legally defective because it did not allege a crime recognized by Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCroft and Elvy Woods were indicted for conspiring together to commit embezzlement of a Ford automobile (motor number 1310083) owned by General Motors …
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 Overt Act In Furtherance Of Conspiracy cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff in error was convicted in the *520Circuit Court of Putnam County under an indictment in the following language:
“IN THE NAME OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA.
In the Circuit Court of the Twenty-fifth Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida, for Putnam County, at the Fall Term thereof, in the year of our Lord One Thousand Nine Hundred and thirty-one,
THE GRAND JURORS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, enquiring in and for the County of Putnam, upon their oaths present that J. L. Croft and Elvy Woods, late of the County of Putnam aforesaid, in the Circuit and State aforesaid, laborer, on the 7th day of September, in the year of our Lord One Thousand, Nine Hundred and thirty-one, with force of arms and in the County of Putnam aforesaid, unlawfully and feloniously did agree, conspire, combine and confederate together to commit a certain offense, to-wit: embezzlement of a certain Ford automobile, motor number 1310083, a better description of said property being to the Grand Jurors unknown, against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, to the evil example of all others in like manner offending, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Florida.
OVERT ACT.
AND the Grand Jurors aforesaid upon their oaths aforesaid, do further present that the said J. L. Croft and Elvy Woods in the County of Putnam, State of Florida, on the 7th day of September, A. D. 1931, did do certain acts to effect the object of the said unlawful and felonious conspiracy, combination, confederacy and agreement, that is to say: That on the 7th day of September, A. D. 1931, in the County and State aforesaid, the said J. L. Croft was in possession of one Ford automobile, engine number 1310083, the property, goods and chattels of ■ General Motors Acceptance Corporation, a corporation, and that he the said J. L. Croft then and there agreed with the said Elvy Woods for the said Elvy Woods to tahe said automobile and do away with the same in such a manner that the lawful owner, the General Motors Acceptance Corporation, a corporation, would be deprived of its said property.
*521AND SO Tlie Grand Jurors aforesaid, on their oaths aforesaid, do say that the said defendants, at the time and place and in the manner aforesaid, unlawfully and feloniously did conspire to commit the offense against the State of Florida, and that the said defendants did do acts to effect the object of the conspiracy and against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, to the evil example of all others in like case offending, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Florida. ’ ’
After conviction defendant in the court below, plaintiff in error here, filed motion in arrest of judgment.
The indictment totally fails to' charge any offense against the laws of Florida, and therefore, the motion should have been granted and the defendant discharged.
The judgment is reversed.
So ordered.
Whitfield, Terrell, Brown and Davis, J.J., concur.
(concurring).—There is no allegation in the indictment that Croft was in possession of the automobile as the agent, servant or bailee of the owners, or under any other relationship with the owmers within the scope of the embezzlement statutes.
See section 7244 to 724:7 C. G. L.
Davis, J., concurs.
Brown, J.
(concurring).—There is no allegation in the indictment that Croft was in possession of the automobile as the agent, servant or bailee of the owners, or under any other relationship with the owmers within the scope of the embezzlement statutes.
See section 7244 to 724:7 C. G. L.
Davis, J., concurs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Coleman, 131 Fla. 892 (Fla. 1938)…charge a crime against the laws of Florida. It is true that a conspiracy to commit a crime is prohibited by the laws of Florida. If the above indictment fails to state a crime per se, then the conspiracy falls of its own weight. See Croft v. State, 106 Fla. 519, 143 So. 599. A pertinent summary of the indictment appearing in one of the briefs is, viz.: “1. Williams, DuBose and Ferguson were City Commissioners of the City of Miami. “2. They agreed, conspired, combined and confederated with Grady. [*897] “…
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Thomas J. Kelly v. Whisnant, 80 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 1955)…t the information wholly failed to state any offense against the laws of the state and being so it was wholly void. This court is committed to that doctrine. State ex rel. Williams v. Coleman, 131 Fla. 892, 180 So. 357; Croft v. State, 105 Fla. 519, 143 So. 599; State ex rel. Tatham v. Coleman, 122 Fla. 819, 166 So. 221; State v. Alred, Fla., 68 So. 2d 894; Section 11, Declaration of Rights, F.S.A. Constitution of Florida, and Amendment VI, Federal Constitution. Appellant recognizes the rule enunciated in…
-
City of Hialeah v. Groves, 101 F.2d 951 (5th Cir. 1939)…livery by him is presumed until the contrary is proved.” Delivery of the bonds is presumed until the contrary is proved; and the proof, standing uncontradicted, made a prima facie case on this issue. S. K. S. Holding Co. v. Vans Agnew, 106 Fla. 830, 143 So. 599. Lack or want of status as a holder in due course is not a defense to a negotiable instrument payable to bearer. Its only effect would be to let in defenses against the first holder, promisee, or obligee. Where such defenses are not asserted, no su…