DAVID WOLOSKY, A/K/A DAVID KAYE, AND DAVID J. DAVID, APPELLANTS,
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 appellate court affirmed the convictions of two corporate officers for grand larceny, holding that the evidence sufficiently proved they unlawfully withdrew corporate funds and that the corporation sustained a loss, even if the exact destination of the money wasn't proven.
Yes, the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction for grand larceny because the state proved a scheme to unlawfully obtain corporate funds by misrepresentation and that the funds were not used for the stated corporate purpose, thus establishing a loss to the corporation.
“The appellants contend that the proof was insufficient to sustain the conviction inasmuch as the state failed to establish that the corporation sustained a loss.”
This quote captures the main argument raised by the appellants on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants, corporate officers David Kaye and David J. David, waived a jury trial and were convicted of grand larceny. The state proved that they join…
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 Grand Larceny cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellants, David Kaye and David J. David, were tried, after waiving trial by jury, convicted and sentenced for the crime of grand larceny. They were officers in a corporation and the state proved that by joint participation they withdrew from the corporate account $9,000, which was reduced to the possession of one of them.
The appellants contend that the proof was insufficient to sustain the conviction inasmuch as the state failed to establish that the corporation sustained a loss. It is contended that the state was unable to show where the money went after it came into the possession of one of the defendants, and, therefore, there must be an acquittal because it was not affirmatively proved that the money was not used for the benefit of the corporation. A review of the record reveals that a scheme of the two defendants to secure cash from the corporation, by representation that the checks were to be used to pay certain corporate creditors, was fully established by the stata There is also adequate proof that the money was not used for the purpose for which it was represented it would be used. The evidence submitted was sufficient to establish the commission of the crime of grand larceny.
We have also examined the record in light of the additional assignments of errors presented by the appellants and find that the record is free of reversible error.
Affirmed.
HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, CHAS., JJ., concur.