RANDOLPH HANSBROUGH, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Specific Intent To Defraud cases and more on FLexlaw
LEWIS, J.
We have for review Hansbrough v. State, 757 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), wherein the Fourth District Court of Appeal certified the following questions as being of great public importance:
WHETHER SECTION 817.234(8), FLORIDA STATUTES, INCLUDES A REQUIREMENT OF SPECIFIC INTENT TO DEFRAUD THE INSURER. and, if not
WHETHER THE STATUTE ADVANCES THE GOVERNMENTAL INTEREST IN PREVENTING INSURANCE FRAUD AND IS NOT MORE EXTENSIVE THAN IS NECESSARY TO SERVE THAT INTEREST.
Id. at 1283. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. These questions were both answered in the negative in our recent opinion in State v. Bradford, 787 So. 2d 811, 822 (Fla.2001). Consistent with Bradford, the district court’s decision is quashed and the case is remanded with directions that Hans-brough’s conviction be reversed.
It is so ordered.
WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bohler v. State, 795 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
Authorities Cited
- State v. Bradford, 787 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 2001)
- Salazar v. State, 757 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)