PETER J. BAILER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 1976-09-24
No. 75-1782
MAGER, C. J., ALDERMAN, J., and DURANT, N. JOSEPH, JR., Associate Judge, concur.
337 So. 2d 415 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1976) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s conviction of Obtaining Property in Return for Worthless Check, in violation of Section 832.05(3), Florida Statutes (1973), is reversed because of the trial court’s refusal to instruct the jury that intent to defraud is an indispensable element of this offense. Prince v. State, 333 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).

REVERSED AND REMANDED for a new trial. MAGER, C. J., ALDERMAN, J., and DURANT, N. JOSEPH, JR., Associate Judge, concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Isham W. Adams, Jr. v. State, 356 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
    …ud into the statutory elements notwithstanding that the present statute omits reference to an intent to defraud but explicitly excepts innocent transactions of a certain character. Prince v. State, 333 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Bailer v. State, 337 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Berry v. State, 345 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). We believe, to the contrary, that the Supreme Court silently retracted the Anderson dictum in Ennis v. State, 95 So. 2d 20 (Fla.1957), cert. den., 355 U.S. 868, 78 S.Ct. 117, 2…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw