FRANK L. EDWARDS, 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.
Frank Edwards was convicted of grand larceny for failing to deposit money into a corporate bank account as promised. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the conviction, holding that the State failed to establish a prima facie case because it proved only that Edwards received money and failed to open an account, but never proved he appropriated the funds to his own use.
The court held that the State failed to establish a prima facie case of grand larceny. To convict for larceny, the State must prove that the defendant appropriated the money to his own use or that of another person other than the true owner. Proof that Edwards received the money and failed to open an account is insufficient without evidence of appropriation.
“In order to convict the accused of the charge, the State was required to prove that the defendant appropriated the money to his own use, or that of another person other than the true owner.”
Establishes the essential element of larceny—appropriation must be proven, not merely failure to perform a contract
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMultiple witnesses gave Edwards money to acquire a radio station. The parties agreed Edwards would hold the money in escrow until a corporation was fo…
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 Appropriation Of Property cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant appeals a judgment and sentence based on a finding of guilty by a jury of the crime of grand larceny.
At the close of the State’s case the appellant moved for a directed verdict of acquittal, which motion was denied.
The State presented evidence of several of the complaining witnesses which established that they had given the appellant certain sums of monies for the purpose of acquiring a radio station. It was agreed that a corporation was to be formed and the monies were to be deposited into a corporate bank account by the appellant. At the time the monies were turned over to the appellant the corporation had not been formed and it was agreed that Mr. Edwards would accept the monies and hold them in escrow for the corporation and at the proper time deposit said monies in the bank in the name of the corporation. It was also agreed that the complaining witnesses were to receive five shares of stock in the corporation in return for the monies. *141The State’s testimony further showed that the monies were never deposited in a bank account in the name of the corporation even though the corporation was subsequently formed by the appellant.
Although there was testimony that the appellant was never given any authority to expend any part of the monies given to him, no where in the State’s case was there any proof that the appellant had expended any of said monies.
In substance, the only thing the State proved was that the complaining witnesses gave him monies to open an account and that no bank account was ever opened.
In the case of Ricard v. State, Fla.App. 1966, 181 So.2d 677, under substantially the identical proof by the State as in the case sub judice, the court stated -at pages 678 and 679:
“The State proved that Mrs. Iglesias gave the appellant the money to open the account for her husband in the Royal Bank of Canada in Kingston, Jamaica. The State also proved that no bank account of any type was ever opened in the Royal Bank of Canada in the name of Mrs. Iglesias’ husband.”
* h= * * * *
“As in all criminal cases, the State had the burden of proving the accused guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. Eizenman v. State, Fla.App.1961, 132 So.2d 763. In order to convict the accused of the charge, the State was required to prove that the defendant appropriated the money to his own use, or that of another person other than the true owner.1 The evidence upon which the State relied to prove this element was that the defendant received the money and that no bank account was ever opened. We hold that this evidence was not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of grand larceny. Therefore, the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motions for a directed verdict, and the judgment must be reversed.”
We hold that the State failed to establish a prima facie case of grand larceny and therefore the lower court erred in not granting the appellant’s motion for a directed verdict at the close of the State’s case.
Reversed and appellant discharged from this cause.
PIERCE and MANN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brewer v. State, 413 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…s gave the appellant money to perform a future service and the future service was never performed, therefore the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction of theft, citing Martin v. State, 379 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), Edwards v. State, 226 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969), and Ricard v. State, 181 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). In Ricard, the State presented evidence that the victim gave money to the defendant to open a Jamaican bank account, the defendant never opened the account, the victim deman…
-
Erle W. McGOUGH v. State, 293 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)…o-op stopped doing business with the agency) did not equal the amount supposedly due. Still McGough paid the agency no money at all. Apparently both were awaiting future Co-op purchases in order to get even. . E. g., Edwards v. State, Fla.App.1969, 226 So. 2d 140; Whitehead v. State, Fla.App.1973, 273 So. 2d 146; Schilling v. State, Fla.App.1973, 285 So. 2d 428. . Of course, Timmons, his bookkeeper, and McGough himself, all denied any criminal arrangement between Timmons and the defendant. . This was in li…
-
Martin v. State, 379 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)…on that his motions for judgment of acquittal made at the close of the State’s, case, and at the conclusion of all testimony, should have been granted, relying primarily upon Ricard v. State, 181 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1966), and Edwards v. State, 226 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1969). In Ricard the State proved that the victim gave the defendant money to open an account in Jamaica for the purpose of aiding the victim’s Cuban husband in his attempt to obtain a visa to that island. The victim later discovered t…
Authorities Cited
- Eizenman v. State, 132 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Ricard v. State, 181 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)