WILLIAM HARDY DAVIS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
William Hardy Davis, president of an insurance agent corporation, was convicted of grand larceny for stealing approximately $100,000 in insurance premiums that his company was required to hold in trust for Leatherby Insurance Company. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed his conviction, rejecting multiple evidentiary and procedural challenges to his trial.
The court held that no reversible error occurred on any of the five points raised. The requirement to produce business records did not violate the Fifth Amendment privilege; denial of continuance was within the trial court's discretion; photographic and microfilm evidence was properly admitted; the directed verdict motion was properly denied on the evidence presented; the mistrial motion was properly denied as it lacked a timely objection and instruction request; and the refusal to charge the jury about civil remedies was not error.
[1] A requirement for the production of records of a corporate agent, where the defendant was president, does not violate the defendant's privilege against self-incrimination…
[2] Denial of a defendant's motion for a continuance is within the sound judicial discretion of the court, and reversible error is not shown absent an abuse of discretion.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A requirement for production of records of the agent corporation, of which the appellant was president, did not constitute a violation of the appellant's privilege against self-incrimination.”
Establishes that corporate records production does not implicate Fifth Amendment protections for corporate officers
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLeatherby Insurance Company, a foreign corporation, contracted with Statewide Underwriters, Inc. (a Florida corporation of which Davis was president) …
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 Prejudicial Remarks By Prosecutor cases and more on FLexlaw
Leatherby Insurance Company, a foreign corporation, entered into a written agreement with Statewide Underwriters, Inc., a Florida corporation of which the appellant William Hardy Davis was president. Thereunder the latter corporation, acting as agent for the former, was to solicit the sale of insurance policies, collect the premiums thereon and place them in a trust account to be remitted to the insurance company which would then compensate the Florida corporation for its expenses and commissions thereon.1
By an information the appellant and another person were charged with grand larceny, the information- alleging that between certain dates they did “unlawfully and fe-loneously take, steal and carry away certain personal property, to-wit: CASH in the sum of approximately One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00), good and lawful money of the United States of America, property of another, to-wit: Leatherby Insurance Co., of New York, a corporation,” etc.
On trial before a jury Davis was found guilty. He was so adjudged, and was sentenced to five years imprisonment. This appeal followed.
Five points presented in the brief of the appellant have been considered in the light of the record, briefs and argument, and we hold that no reversible error has been shown.
A requirement for production of records of the agent corporation, of which the appellant was president, did not constitute a violation of the appellant’s privilege against self-incrimination. State ex rel. Losey v. Willard, Fla.1951, 54 So.2d 183; 79 C.J.S. Searches and Seizures § 37. Denial of defendant’s motion for continuance was within the sound judicial discretion of the court. No abuse of discretion in that regard was shown. No error- was committed by receiving in evidence photographs and microfilm copies of business records of the agent corporation. §§ 92.32 and 92.-29 Fla.Stat., F.S.A. On the evidence submitted, the trial court did not commit error in denying the defendant’s motion for directed verdict. The defendant’s motion for mistrial for remarks made by the prosecutor before the jury claimed to be prejudicial, was properly denied by the trial court. The motion was not preceded by objection thereto and request of the court to instruct the jury to disregard the same. See Morris v. State, 100 Fla. 850, 130 So. 582; Ricks v. State, Fla.App.1971, 242 So.2d 763. No fundamental error resulted therefrom. Refusal by the court to give a certain charge requested by the defendant did not constitute error herein. The appellant’s contention that prosecution for the alleged offense would not lie because of the existence of a civil remedy of the said insurance company, is without merit. See Manufacturers’ Casualty Ins. Co. v. Mink, 129 N.J.L. 575, 30 A.2d 510, 512.
The judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Panzavecchia v. State, 311 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…ant did not direct objections thereto, request cautionary instruction to the jury regarding them and receive adverse rulings thereon, as a basis for the motion for mistrial. Morris v. State, 100 Fla. 850, 130 So. 582; Davis v. State, Fla. App. 1973, 281 So. 2d 551. Although not contended for by the appellant, we note that the two offenses of which the defendant was convicted were facets or phases of the same transaction, in which circumstance only one sentence should have been imposed, being that for the hig…
-
Bolen v. State, 375 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)…deemed to have erred or abused his discretion in failing to grant the sole relief requested below by denying the motions for mistrial. Abbott v. State, 334 So. 2d 642, 647 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 345 So. 2d 420 (Fla.1977); Davis v. State, 281 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973), cert. denied, 289 So. 2d 734 (Fla.1974). Bolen’s other point of substance claims error in the following portion of the charge to the jury concerning the crime involved: The driver of an automobile need only be aware that he was…
-
State v. Deems, 334 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…179. However, a requirement for production of records of the corporation of which Deems was president would not violate Deems’ privilege against self incrimination and would not prevent prosecution under the statute. Davis v. State, Fla.App.1973, 281 So. 2d 551; 79 C. J.S. Searches and Seizures § 37. Section 914.04, Fla.Stat., is designed to assure an individual’s constitution- The subpoena duces tecum served on Deems in part provided: “IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA, IN…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Morris v. State, 100 Fla. 850 (Fla. 1930)
- Ricks v. State, 242 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- State Ex Rel. Losey v. Willard, 54 So.2d 183 (Fla. 1951)