S. AIKEN CAMPBELL
v.
STATE
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.
Campbell was convicted of obtaining money under false pretenses by fraudulently selling interest in a purportedly thriving business that was actually illusory. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that evidence of a broader fraud scheme and multiple victims was properly admitted to demonstrate fraudulent intent.
Evidence of a larger scheme of fraud and multiple victims was admissible to demonstrate fraudulent intent as part of the false pretenses offense. The evidence was legally sufficient to sustain the guilty verdict, although the court found the sentence imposed was excessively disproportionate to the offense.
“Evidence of that character was admissible to demonstrate a fraudulent intent incident to a larger general scheme of fraud and deception of which the particular false pretenses set out in the information constituted a mere part.”
Establishes the admissibility standard for evidence of a broader fraud scheme to prove fraudulent intent in a false pretenses case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCampbell obtained money from Reuben J. Eby and others by representing that his business was a large, profitable enterprise requiring four salesmen 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 Intent To Defraud cases and more on FLexlaw
Campbell was informed against in the Criminal Court of Record for Dade County for the offense of obtaining money under false pretenses from one Reuben J. Eby. No attack was made on the information. The case is here solely on the evidence and certain errors alleged to have been committed at the trial.
The alleged false pretenses adduced in evidence consisted of proof of the act of the defendant in fraudulently obtaining money from the public, particularly the defrauded complainant, Eby, for a part interest in defendant’s business on the false representation that the business owned by defendant was one of large proportions requiring the employment of four salesmen to conduct it at substantial profit to its owner, in consequence of which the owner was willing to take in a partner to whom he could sell a working interest in consideration of a bona fide profitable capital investment in same, whereas, in- truth and in fact, the business, such as it was, was largely illusory and merely pretended to be carried on as a bona fide concern, and had been contrived by. defendant as a clever plan for inducing the public to part with its money for the purchase of a part interest in same in the'belief that they would find therein a profitable investment for their funds, should they accept the defendant’s offer to become a part owner' of same.
Evidence was introduced to show that more than one person had been victimized by defendant in the perpetra*401tion of his scheme to sell an interest in his concern to any one who would purchase an interest in the business he was operating, or pretending to operate, and that defendant used newspaper advertisements as a means of inducing the public to invest their money in his pretended business. Evidence of that character was admissible to demonstrate a fraudulent intent incident to a larger general scheme of fraud and deception of which the particular false pretenses set out in the information constituted a mere part. Smith v. State, 29 Fla. 408, 10 Sou. Rep. 894; Presley v. State, 63 Fla. 37, 57 Sou. Rep. 605; Charles v. State, 58 Fla. 17, 50 Sou. Rep. 419.
We hold that the evidence is legally sufficient to sustain the verdict of guilty, although we agree with the view of the Assistant Attorney General, who filed brief for the state on this appeal, that the sentence imposed for the offense proven is excessively out of all proportions to the public wrong done — a question for consideration by the State Board of Pardons should a. petition for an adjudgment of sentence be addressed to it.
Affirmed.
Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Brown, and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Watkins v. State, 363 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…an approximately six years ago and continued to the incident for which the defendant was on trial did not make the evidence too remote. Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959); Talley v. State, 160 593, 36 So. 2d 201 (1948); Campbell v. State, 127 Fla. 399, 173 So. 677 (1937); Whiteman v. State, 343 So. 2d 1340 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). Reversed and remanded for a new trial.…
-
Morin v. City of Stuart, 111 F.2d 773 (5th Cir. 1940)…aines City, 126 Fla. 561, 169 So. 383; State ex rel. Landis v. Coral Gables, 120 Fla. 492, 163 So. 308, 101 A.L.R. 578; Haines City Heights, Inc., v. Haines City, 127 Fla. 86, 172 So. 484; Town of Lake Maitland v. State ex rel. Landis, 127 Fla. 653, 173 So. 677; City of Auburndale v. State ex rel. Landis, 135 Fla. 172, 184 So. 787; City of Winter Haven v. State, 125 Fla. 392, 170 So. 100. Certain Lands v. City of Stuart, 137 Fla. 784, 188 So. 605; State ex rel. Davis v. City of Stuart, 97 Fla. 69, 120 So.…
Authorities Cited
- Smith v. State, 29 Fla. 408 (Fla. 1892)
- Presley v. State, 63 Fla. 37 (Fla. 1912)
- Charles v. State, 58 Fla. 17 (Fla. 1909)