JOHN T. O'BRIEN, 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.
John T. O'Brien was convicted of larceny of $6,515 entrusted to him in his capacity as president of a real estate brokerage. The appellate court reversed the conviction, finding the evidence insufficient to prove that O'Brien personally misappropriated the funds, as the checks were made payable to the corporation and no evidence showed who actually withdrew the money from escrow.
The court reversed the conviction, holding that the state failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence was insufficient because although the information charged O'Brien with larceny under the statute covering brokers, bailees, agents, or trustees, the money was given to the corporation and endorsed as payable to it, not to O'Brien personally, and there was no testimony establishing that O'Brien specifically withdrew the funds.
“The money was given to the corporation and the checks were endorsed by Grady as being payable to Florida Business Opportunities, Inc. The name of the defendant does not appear on the checks nor has the name of the person withdrawing the funds from the escrow account been shown.”
Establishes the critical evidentiary gap—funds went to the corporation, not O'Brien personally, and no identification of who withdrew them
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceO'Brien was president of Florida Business Opportunities, Inc., a real estate broker. Charles T. Grady paid $6,515 through checks endorsed as payable t…
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 Escrow Account cases and more on FLexlaw
On June 30, 1959 an information was filed in the Criminal Court of Record in and for Dade County by Richard E. Ger-stein, State Attorney of the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida in and for Dade County, charging the defendant, John T. O’Brien, in that “John T. O’Brien of the County of Dade and State of Florida, between the 26th day of November, 1958, and the 27th day of January, in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fifty-nine, in the County and State aforesaid, did then and there being a broker, bailee, agent, or trustee of Charles T. Grady, and having in his possession, custody and control certain person [sic] property of Charles T. Grady, to-wit: Six Thousand Five Hundred Fifteen Dollars ($6515.00) Good and Lawful Money of the United States of America, said personal property being the subject of larceny and being of the value of more than One Hundred Dollars ($100.00), good *631and lawful money of the United States of America, did then and there with intent to defraud and deprive the said Charles T. Grady of said property, unlawfully and feloniously appropriate the same to his own use or to the use of some other person other than Charles T. Grady, contrary to the form of the Statute in such cases made and provided, and' against the peace and dignity of the State of Florida.”
The defendant, appellant herein, was found guilty and sentenced to five years in the State Penitentiary.
The evidence in this case shows that the defendant, appellant herein, was President of Florida Business Opportunities, Inc. which acted as a broker in the sale of various businesses.
That Charles T. Grady, the complaining witness, approached appellant O’Brien about buying a beer and wine business and on November 26, 19S8 a Mr. Lewis, who was employed by Florida Business Opportunities, Inc. showed Grady the Gombay Bar. The defendant informed Grady that it would cost $6,515 and on said date Grady made payment of all but $300 by endorsing two cashiers checks, one of which payable to Charles Grady and the other to Evelyn Grady, and endorsing the same so as to be payable to Florida Business Opportunities, Inc. Escrow Account. On January 15, 1959, Grady paid the balance of $300 with a cashiers check which was payable to Charles Grady and endorsed by him. The check was then endorsed and made payable to Florida Business Opportunities, Inc. As a receipt for the larger sum a deposit receipt was executed in .the name of Florida Business Opportunities by J. T. O’Brien. As a receipt for the smaller amount, O’Brien gave his personal receipt. The deposit receipt, among other things, provided “that the Florida Business Opportunities, Inc. will hold in escrow all monies paid today, until the beverage license is transferred unto the purchasers name.” After much delay Grady took possession of the Gombay Bar in March, 1959 and the balance of the money was paid to the seller, Parker L. Matthews, who had previously on November 26, 1958 been advised by O’Brien or his salesman that the bar had been sold. Mr. Matthews had at various times, while the closing was pending, received advancements from O’Brien. The State offered the escrow account of Florida Business Opportunities, Inc. to show that the sum of $6,215 was deposited on November 26, 1958 and that by January 23, 1959, the balance was $290.09 and that withdrawals could be made by J. T. O’Brien and Evelyn O’Brien. The bank official where the above escrow account was kept, testified that Florida Business Opportunities, Inc. had other escrow accounts and other accounts in the said bank. No testimony was presented as to which person had withdrawn the money.
The information charges the defendant, John T. O’Brien, with larceny of $6,515 entrusted to him by Charles T. Grady and it was drawn under Section 811.021, Fla. Stat, F.S.A., providing for larceny by a broker, bailee, agent, or trustee. The money was given to the corporation and the checks were endorsed by Grady as being payable to Florida Business Opportunities, Inc. The name of the defendant does not appear on the checks nor has the name of the person withdrawing the funds from the escrow account been shown.
The State has failed to prove its case against the defendant and a careful study of the evidence shows that even if the information had been filed under Section 812.04, the evidence is insufficient. Judgment is therefore reversed. Silvestri v. State, Fla.App.1960, 122 So.2d 502; 19 C.J.S. Corporations § 931.
Reversed.
HORTON, C. J., and CARROLL, CHAS., J., concur.
*632On Petition for Rehearing
PER CURIAM.
It has been brought to the court’s attention by the State’s petition for rehearing that the judgment in this cause was reversed without any directions from the court as to what further action, if any, should be taken in the trial court. The opinion of this court of April 3, 1961, is amended as follows in accordance with § 924.36, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., to read:
“Reversed and remanded for a new trial.”
The aforesaid opinion of this court, as amended, is adhered to.
HORTON, C. J., CARROLL, CHAS., J., and LOPEZ, AQUILINO, Jr., Associate Judge, concur.
On Petition for Rehearing
PER CURIAM.
It has been brought to the court’s attention by the State’s petition for rehearing that the judgment in this cause was reversed without any directions from the court as to what further action, if any, should be taken in the trial court. The opinion of this court of April 3, 1961, is amended as follows in accordance with § 924.36, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., to read:
“Reversed and remanded for a new trial.”
The aforesaid opinion of this court, as amended, is adhered to.
HORTON, C. J., CARROLL, CHAS., J., and LOPEZ, AQUILINO, Jr., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rosengarten v. State, 171 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)…money and the failure of the State to prove inevitable loss to the victim do not require reversal. State v. Mills, supra. We do not overlook defendant’s reliance on the cases of O’Brien v. State, Fla.App. 1961, 128 So. 2d 621 and O’Brien v. State, 128 So. 2d 630 as authority for his contention that there must be a showing of appropriation of the property by the defendant to his own or the use of someone else. In the O’Brien cases the money was deposited in a company bank account and there was no showing the…
-
Ricard v. State, 181 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…ific intent is necessary. The court stated that in such cases the burden is upon the State to prove affirmatively, by direct or circumstantial evidence, that the act was done with the requisite specific intent. And in O’Brien v. State, Fla.App.1961, 128 So. 2d 630 this Court held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction for larceny by a broker, where the State presented evidence that the defendant and another could withdraw funds from an escrow account, and that the balance in the account ha…
Authorities Cited
- Joseph v. Silvestri, 122 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)