WILLIE JAMES KING, 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.
The Florida District Court of Appeal, First District, held that attempted uttering of a forged instrument is not a cognizable offense under Florida law because uttering itself is fundamentally an act of attempt, making an attempt to attempt logically impossible.
Attempted uttering of a forged instrument is not a cognizable offense under Florida law. Because uttering itself is fundamentally an act of attempt, there logically cannot be an attempt to commit uttering. Therefore, the trial court properly refused to give the jury instruction on attempted uttering.
[1] There is no offense under Florida law of attempt to utter a forged instrument.
[2] If a crime is itself an attempt to do an act or accomplish a result, there can be no attempt to commit that crime.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“If a crime is itself an attempt to do an act or accomplish a result, there can be no attempt to commit that crime.”
The core legal principle establishing that attempted uttering cannot exist because uttering is inherently an attempt crime.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWillie James King was charged with and convicted of uttering a forged instrument under F.S. 831.02. At trial, King requested a jury instruction on the…
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 Attempt To Commit A Crime cases and more on FLexlaw
BOYER, Chief Judge.
We here consider the issue of whether there exists under Florida law the offense of attempted uttering of a forged instrument. Appellant, defendant below, was charged with and convicted of uttering a forged instrument as defined by F.S. 831.-02. He argued unsuccessfully in the court below that the jury should be instructed as to a lesser included offense of attempted uttering, pursuant to Rule 3.510, RCrP. Appellant realizes that in order for the trial judge to instruct the jury on the attempt, he must establish that attempted uttering is an offense cognizable under Florida law. In support of this proposition, appellant relies on Edwards v. State, Fla.App.3rd 1969, 223 So. 2d 746. For reasons expressed below, we refuse to follow the reasoning of the Third District as revealed in the Edwards case. As recognized by the Third District in its decision, “ * * * an uttering is proved as fully by an attempt to negotiate a forged instrument as it is proved by a completed negotiation. Harrell v. State, 79 Fla. 220, 83 So. 922 (1920); Hazen v. Mayo, 90 So. 2d 123 (Sup.Ct.Fla.1956).” Nevertheless, the Third District held that merely because attempted uttering is not a separate crime from the offense of uttering itself, attempted uttering may be considered a separate offense for the purposes of F.S. 919.-16.1 Logic dictates to us a different conclusion. If a crime is itself an attempt to do an act or accomplish a result, there can be no attempt to commit that crime. (22 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 74) We, therefore, hold that there is no offense nor crime under Florida law of attempt to utter a forged instrument. Accordingly, the trial court was correct in refusing to give the standard jury instruction on attempt as requested by the appellant.
We have examined the remaining points raised by the appellant on appeal in light of the applicable law and the relevant facts as contained within the record, and find them to be without merit. The judgment and sentence rendered by the lower court are, therefore,
Affirmed.
RAWLS and McCORD, JJ., concur. . The language in F.S. 919.16 is virtually identical to the language contained in Rule 3.510, RCrP.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, 543 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 1989)…ttempt, if willfully Negligent treatment of child — 827.05 Child abuse — 827.04(2) None Attempt, if willfully Negligent treatment of child — 827.05 Forgery — 831.01 None Attempt Uttering forged instrument — 831.02 None No attempt — King v. State, 317 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975) Stopping payment; purchase of farm or grove products — 832.04 None Attempt, except when uttering is charged — 832.-04 under $50 Stopping payment with intent to defraud — 832.041 None Attempt, except when uttering is charged; 83…
-
State v. Sykes, 434 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 1983)…(Fla.1982); Adams v. Murphy, 394 So. 2d 411 (Fla.1981), on quest, certified, 598 F. 2d 982 (5th Cir.1979); Pagano v. State, 387 So. 2d 349 (Fla.1980); Milazzo v. State, 377 So. 2d 1161 (Fla.1979); King v. State, 339 So. 2d 172 (Fla.1976), affirming 317 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); McAbee v. State, 391 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Silvestri v. State, 332 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 4th DCA), approved, 340 So. 2d 928 (Fla.1976). By defining the crimes of theft and grand theft of the first and second degrees so that…
-
Silvestri v. State, 332 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)…v. State, 79 Fla. 220, 83 So. 922 (1920), so, it would seem, the offense of making a false report is fully proven by demonstrating an attempt to convey false information to a police officer. Thus, the holding of the First District in King v. State, 317 So. 2d 852 (Fla.App.1st 1975) which we followed in Jackson v. State, 328 So. 2d 457 (Fla.App.4th 1976) that there is no offense in Florida of attempted uttering of a forged instrument because “there can be no attempt to commit . . . ” a crime which “is itself…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hamilton Harrell v. State, 79 Fla. 220 (Fla. 1920)
- Edwards v. State, 223 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Hazen v. Mayo, 90 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 1956)