WILLIAM JAMES KING, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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 Supreme Court resolved a conflict between district courts regarding whether attempted uttering of a forged instrument constitutes a cognizable offense under Florida law. The Court held that no such offense exists because uttering itself is inherently an attempt crime, and therefore one cannot attempt to commit a crime that is itself an attempt.
No offense of attempted uttering of a forged instrument exists under Florida law. Because uttering is itself an attempt to do an act (negotiate a forged instrument), there can be no attempt to commit that crime. The trial court correctly refused to instruct the jury 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 be a separate offense because uttering itself constitutes an attempt.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliam James King was charged with and convicted of uttering a forged instrument under Florida Statute 831.02. King argued that the trial court erred…
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
PER CURIAM.
We have granted certiorari without oral argument in this case because of conflict between the opinion of the District Court of Appeal, First District, reported at 317 So. 2d 852, and Edwards v. State, 223 So. 2d 746 (Fla.3d DCA 1969). We have jurisdiction under Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution. After examining the briefs submitted by the parties to this cause, we conclude that there is a conflict in decision. Upon review of the authorities and reasoning relied on by the First and Third District Courts of Appeal in reaching the inconsistent results demonstrated by the two opinions, we are persuaded to the conclusion reached by the First District Court of Appeal.
Accordingly, we adopt in its entirety the relevant portion of the opinion filed by the District Court of Appeal, First District: “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 in struction on attempt as requested by the appellant. ** “Affirmed. “RAWLS and McCORD, JJ., concur.”
It is so ordered.
OVERTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ADKINS, BOYD, ENGLAND, SUNDBERG and HATCHETT, JJ., concur. 1. “1. 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 (20 total)
-
State v. Sykes, 434 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 1983)…, e.g., Achin v. State, 436 So. 2d 30 (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…
-
State v. Thomas, 362 So. 2d 1348 (Fla. 1978)…e charged includes the attempt to commit that act. For example, this court has held that the crime of uttering a forged instrument includes the attempt to pass a forged check as well as the actual negotiating of the forged instrument. King v. State, 339 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 1976). The answer is much more difficult with regard to crimes which do not themselves include an attempt. Although it may be possible for a person to be convicted of an attempt to possess items which are contraband per se,7 burglary tools ar…
-
State v. Silvestri, 340 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 1976)…on that the Petition for Writ of Certiorari should be and is hereby granted, the filing of briefs on the merits is dispensed with and the decision of the District Court of Appeal is hereby approved on the authority of King v. State of Florida, Fla., 339 So. 2d 172, opinion filed October 7, 1976. OVERTON, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, ENGLAND, SUNDBERG, HATCHETT and ROBERTS (Retired), JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 20 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)
- King v. State, 317 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- Edwards v. State, 223 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Hazen v. Mayo, 90 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 1956)