LARRY BARTON COHEN, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed grand larceny conviction, rejecting double jeopardy and collateral estoppel defenses and finding sufficient evidence of guilt.
A prior uttering worthless check charge does not bar prosecution for grand larceny under double jeopardy or collateral estoppel, and testimony about a common scheme of defrauding another is admissible.
[1] Evidence of a common scheme or design to defraud is admissible in a grand larceny prosecution even when a prior case involving the same defendant and victim concerned a d…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant was charged with grand larceny after allegedly defrauding Marvin Lucas by representing he could purchase merchandise at below-market cost, 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 Common Scheme Or Design cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant-appellant was informed against, tried non-jury, found guilty and sentenced to one year in the state penitentiary for grand larceny.
On appeal, defendant first contends that the trial judge erred in denying defense counsel’s motion to dismiss or to exclude certain testimony based upon the grounds of double jeopardy and collateral estoppel.
An examination of the record on appeal clearly reflects that the case sub ju-dice is not barred by former jeopardy and/or collateral estoppel as the prior county court case relied on by the appellant pertained to a charge of uttering a worthless check and involved the defendant and one Marvin Lucas. See King v. State, 145 Fla. 286, 199 So. 38 (1940). Further, we find that the testimony of Lucas in the case at bar to the effect that he had given money to the defendant-appellant upon the defendant’s representation that he could purchase an automobile or other merchandise at below market cost and then never received the merchandise or his money back was admissible as this evidence was introduced to establish a common scheme or design and therefore was relevant. See State v. Fisher, Fla.App.1972, 264 So. 2d 857. Thus, this argument of appellant must fail.
Appellant secondly argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. After a review of the record, we conclude that there was competent substantial evidence contained therein to sustain the finding of guilt.
Accordingly, the judgment herein appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cohen v. State, 315 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 1975)…Certiorari denied. 303 So. 2d 388. ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, BOYD, OVERTON, and ENGLAND, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Standford King v. State, 145 Fla. 286 (Fla. 1940)
- In the Interest of D. E. I. v. State, 264 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)