CHARLES RANDALL, 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.
Charles Randall was convicted of issuing a check without sufficient funds under a Florida statute, but the Florida Supreme Court reversed because the indictment failed to allege an essential element of the crime—that title or possession of property received for the check was transferred in reliance on payment.
The indictment was insufficient because it failed to allege that the title or possession of property received for the check was transferred upon the faith of payment of the check, which is an essential element of the crime under the statute. An indictment wholly lacking this ingredient charges no offense under the statute.
“One of the essential elements of the crime denounced by this statute is that the title or possession of the property received for the cheek shall have been transferred upon the faith of the payment of the check.”
Establishes what the court identified as the critical missing element in the indictment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRandall was indicted in Palm Beach County for issuing a check on a bank without sufficient funds and failing to make restitution within the allowed ti…
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.
West, J.
The accused was indicted in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County charged with having committed the crime denounced by Chapter 7263, Acts of 1917, Laws of Florida (Secs. 5706 and 5707 Rev. Gen. Stats, of Florida, 1920), namely, issuing a cheek upon a bank without having sufficient funds on deposit with such bank to pay the check and having, failed, within the time allowed after receipt of written notice of non-payment of such cheek, to make restitution by returning the property received therefor. Upon a trial he was found guilty as charged. To the judgment imposing sentence writ of error was taken from this court.
One of the assignments of error is that the court erred in overruling a motion of defendant to quash the indictment. This motion contains several grounds, among them, that the indictment fails to charge any offense against the laws of the State of Florida, and, that the indictment fails to charge an offense under the statute recited in that it fails to allege that the possession of the property received in consideration for the check given was transferred to defendant upon the faith of the payment of the check.
One of the essential elements of the crime denounced by this statute is that the title or possession of the property received for the cheek shall have been transferred upon the faith of the payment of the check. The indictment contains no such allegation. The offense is statutory, and in the absence of this element a crime was not committed. An indictment therefore which wholly fails to contain an allegation of this ingredient is insufficient and charges no offense under the statute. Ladd v. State, 17 Fla. 215; Humphreys v. State, 17 Fla. 381; Steven v. State 18 Fla. 903; Cook v. State, 25 Fla. 698, 6 South. Rep, 451; Hamilton v. State, 30 Fla. 229, 11 South. Rep. 523; Moulie v. State, 37 Fla. 321, 20 South. Rep. 554; Anderson et al. v. State, 38 Fla. 3, 20 South. Rep. 765; Davis v. State, 51 Fla. 37, 40 South. Rep. 179; Vicente et al. v. State, 66 Fla. 197, 63 South. Rep. 423. There was error in denying the motion to quash, for which the judgment will be reversed with directions to grant the motion to quash the indictment.
Reversed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield and Ellis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dowling v. State, 98 Fla. 523 (Fla. 1929)…51 Fla. 76, 40 So. R. 828; Hunter v. State, 85 Fla. 91, 95 So. R. 115; Jackson v. State, 87 Fla. 262; 99 So. R. 548; Potter v. State, 91 Fla. 938, 109 So. R. 91; Ladd v State, 17 Fla. 215; Davis v. State, 51 Fla. 37, 40 So. R. 179; Randall v. State, 82 Fla. 333, 89 So. R. 875. Applying the above rules to the.complaint in this case, we find that the warrant issued against the defendant wholly failed to charge him with any offense under the statute. The offense denounced by the statute is the “knowingly” u…
Authorities Cited
- Harrison Thompson v. State, 66 Fla. 206 (Fla. 1913)
- Davis v. State, 51 Fla. 37 (Fla. 1906)
- Humphreys v. State, 17 Fla. 381 (Fla. 1879)
- Ladd v. State, 17 Fla. 215 (Fla. 1879)
- Hamilton v. State, 30 Fla. 229 (Fla. 1892)
- Viney Stevens v. State, 18 Fla. 903 (Fla. 1882)
- Cook v. State, 25 Fla. 698 (Fla. 1889)
- Anderson v. State, 38 Fla. 3 (Fla. 1896)
- Moulie v. State, 37 Fla. 321 (Fla. 1896)
- Vicente v. State, 66 Fla. 197 (Fla. 1913)