RAY EIZENMAN, 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.
Ray Eizenman was convicted of grand larceny for appropriating $7,845.59 from her employer, Inter-City Finance Corporation, by signing a check on the corporation's account. On appeal, she challenged the sufficiency of evidence regarding felonious intent and actual deprivation of funds, but the appellate court affirmed the conviction.
The appellate court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction. The trial judge's findings that the evidence supported all essential elements of the crime and satisfied the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt are entitled to deference on appeal, similar to a jury verdict.
“It is contended by the defendant that the evidence adduced on the part of the state was insufficient to prove any felonious intent on the part of the defendant or to prove that the corporation was actually deprived of any of its funds. These were two of the essential elements of this offense. It was the state's burden to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, each of these elements.”
Establishes the essential elements of grand larceny at issue and the state's burden of proof
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEizenman, an officer of Inter-City Finance Corporation, was charged with grand larceny of $7,845.59 belonging to the corporation. She had custody and …
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 Felonious Intent cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, as defendant in the court below, was charged through an information with grand larceny of $7,845.59 belonging to Inter-City Finance Corporation, a Florida corporation. The bill of particulars alleges that the defendant committed the crime of grand larceny by appropriating *764to her use and benefit said sum, at a time when defendant had in her custody and control, as an officer of the Inter-City Finance Corporation, the bank account of said corporation, said monies having been appropriated to her use and benefit by means of a check signed by her, drawn on the account of the corporation.
The defendant pleaded not guilty and waived trial by jury. The case was thereupon tried by a judge of the Criminal Court of Record in and for Dade County. She was found guilty of grand larceny and sentenced to a term of three years in the state penitentiary and that she pay a fine of $1,-000. In default of such payment she was to be imprisoned for an additional one year.
The question for determination on appeal is whether or not the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction of the crime of grand larceny.
It is contended by the defendant that the evidence adduced on the part of the state was insufficient to prove any felonious intent on the part of the defendant or to prove that the corporation was actually deprived of any of its funds.
These were two of the essential elements of this offense. It was the state’s burden to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, each of these elements.
Defendant having waived jury trial made the judge the trier of the facts and the arbiter of the law. It, thereupon, became his duty to weigh the testimony and the credibility of the witnesses. Where there were conflicts in the .testimony it was within the province of the judge to reject any testimony he found to be untrue and to accept and rely upon such testimony as he found to be worthy of belief. The trial judge found that the evidence sustained all essential elements of the crime and that such evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction and sentence.
Upon an examination of all the evidence appearing in the record, if it appears that the essential elements necessary to constitute the crime clearly appear therein, even though conflicts appear therein, an appellate court will not interfere with the conclusions of the trial judge. His determination is entitled to the weight of a jury verdict before an appellate court. See Farley v. State, 88 Fla. 159, 101 So. 239; Dixon v. State, 143 Fla. 277, 196 So. 604; Peele v. State, 155 Fla. 235, 20 So.2d 120; Smith v. State, La.App.1960, 118 So.2d 257.
The record has been carefully examined and the evidence is found sufficient to support the judgment and sentence.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (28 total)
-
Wright v. State, 182 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…late court is to review the record to determine whether it contains sufficient, competent, substantial evidence which, if believed, would support the verdict of guilty. See: Dixon v. State, 143 Fla. 277, 196 So. 604; Eizenman v. State, Fla.App.1961, 132 So. 2d 763; Crum v. State, supra. As stated [*265] by the Supreme Court of Florida m State v. Sebastian, Fla.1965, 171 So. 2d 893: * * * H= * * “[4] We know of no statute or case law in this jurisdiction which requires more than one zvitness in a criminal r…
-
I.R. and I.R. v. State, 385 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…ibility of witnesses, and upon evaluating the testimony, rely upon the testimony found by it to be worthy of belief and reject such testimony found by it to be untrue. Blackburn v. State, 314 So. 2d [*688] 634 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Eizenman v. State, 132 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961). In the present case the trial judge could well have accepted the testimony of the State’s witness that the appellant handed his brother the metal lock just before the brother struck the fatal bow.2 The testimony of a single witne…
-
Hoover v. State, 212 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…re are conflicts in the evidence in a non-jury trial, it is within the province of the trial judge to reject any testimony he finds to be untrue and to accept and rely upon that which he finds to be worthy of belief. Eizenman v. State, Fla.App.1961, 132 So. 2d 763. There is an additional reason to affirm this case. There were submitted into evidence in the trial below two photographs of some of the people involved in this matter. An essential issue determined by the trial judge may have been whether the part…
Previewing 3 of 28 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Peele v. State, 155 Fla. 235 (Fla. 1944)
- Armos Dixon v. State, 143 Fla. 277 (Fla. 1940)
- Farley v. State, 88 Fla. 159 (Fla. 1924)
- Smith v. State, 118 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Marshall v. Marshall, 155 Fla. 322 (Fla. 1944)