WILLIAM B. REDDING, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
The court held that the state failed to establish specific intent for grand theft and failed to establish perjury because no oath was administered.
Appellant was convicted of grand theft and perjury related to a contract for constructing mini-storage warehouses. The state's evidence for theft lack…
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.
ERVIN, Judge.
Appellant, William B. Redding, challenges his convictions for grand theft and perjury in connection with the improvement of real property, which arose following Redding’s unsatisfactory performance under a contract in which he agreed to construct mini-storage warehouses. We reverse the convictions and sentences for the following reasons. First, the state s evidence failed to establish specific intent to commit theft, which is an essential element of the crime. See Stramaglia v. State, 603 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 613 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1992).
Second, the state failed to establish perjury under section 713.35, Florida Statutes (1989). Although the applications for payment were notarized, the notary testified that she did not administer an oath to Red-ding when he signed the applications. See Youngker v. State, 215 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968).1
Based on our resolution of the first two issues, it is unnecessary to reach the remaining issues regarding the discovery violation and restitution.
REVERSED and REMANDED with directions to discharge Redding.
MINER, J., concurs.
BENTON, J., concurs in result.
. No objection was made that such testimony was inadmissible on the ground that it was extrinsic evidence to a document which appeared complete on its face.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Frey v. State, 708 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 1998)…Fla. 2d DCA 1979) (escape is specific intent crime), overruled on other grounds, Parker v. State, 408 So. 2d 1037 (Fla.1982). . See Spivey v. State, 680 So. 2d 565, 566 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)(theft is a specific intent crime) (citing Redding v. State, 666 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)). . See Linehan v. State, 476 So. 2d 1262, 1265 (Fla.1985) (holding that arson is a general intent crime). . There may be an emerging trend nationwide to abolish the defense of voluntary intoxication in the wake of the Supreme…
-
Bartlett v. State, 765 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…3). See generally State v. Dunmann, 427 So. 2d 166, 169 (Fla.1983); State v. Allen, 362 So. 2d 10, 11 (Fla.1978). The state had the burden to establish “specific intent to commit theft, which is an essential element of the crime.” Redding v. State, 666 So. 2d 921, 922 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). The state had the burden therefore to exclude Mr. Bartlett’s hypothesis of innocence by virtue of a good faith claim to the right to possession. See McGough, 302 So. 2d at 755. Considerable evidence supported the defense th…
-
Spivey v. State, 680 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…his plea that appellant “was highly intoxicated prior to and during the commission of the alleged offense, and was incapable of committing a specific intent crime as charged in the information.” Theft is a specific intent crime. Redding v. State, 666 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Voluntary intoxication is a recognized defense to specific intent crimes. Eberhardt v. State, 550 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), review denied, 560 So. 2d 234 (Fla.1990). Accordingly, appellant’s allegations are facially suffic…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Youngker v. State, 215 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)
- Stramaglia v. State, 603 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)