J. N. W., 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.
A juvenile appeals his conviction for uttering a forged instrument, challenging the sufficiency of evidence regarding his knowledge that the check was forged. The District Court of Appeal affirms the conviction, finding circumstantial evidence of guilty knowledge was sufficient based on his presentation of the forged check and accompanying statements.
The circumstantial evidence of the appellant's guilty knowledge was sufficient to withstand a motion for judgment of acquittal based on his presentation of the forged check and statements that calculated to intimate false assurances. The restitution order prior to release was also proper.
[1] Circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to prove a defendant's guilty knowledge of a forged instrument.
[2] A jury may infer guilty knowledge from a defendant's presentation of a forged check and statements made concerning it, if those actions are calculated to intimate false a…
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“the circumstantial evidence of appellant's guilty knowledge was sufficient to withstand his motion for judgment of acquittal”
Establishes the court's holding that sufficient evidence supported the conviction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant presented a forged Coastal Hay Company payroll check at the Wagon Wheel Lounge, purportedly payable to Sammy Helms, a fictitious employee. 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 Uttering A Forged Instrument cases and more on FLexlaw
SMITH, Acting Chief Judge.
A juvenile appeals from a conviction for uttering a forged instrument, Section 831.-02, Florida Statutes (1977). It is contended in his behalf that there was no evidence, direct or circumstantial, that he knew the check he presented for cash was forged. We find, on the contrary, that the circumstantial evidence of appellant’s guilty knowledge was sufficient to withstand his motion for judgment of acquittal. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the state, it appears that appellant presented a Coastal Hay Company payroll check, payable to Sammy Helms, at the Wagon Wheel Lounge. The check was forged and Sammy Helms was, for all purposes here, fictitious. The check bore the purported endorsement of “Sammy Helms” when appellant presented it; and appellant’s presentation of and statements concerning the check intimated to the recipient that he, appellant, was the payee, an employee of the maker, and that the endorsement was his own. If the jury could find that appellant’s presentation and statements concerning the check were calculated to intimate false assurances, the jury could properly have found that 'appellant had guilty knowledge that the check was a forgery. We need not consider whether “mere possession” of the forged instrument gave rise to an inference of guilty knowledge sufficient for the jury. It may well be doubted that there are or can be well-tried prosecutions of guilty defendants in which “mere possession” is all that is shown; but it is sufficient for present purposes that this is not such a case.
There was no error in the order for restitution prior to release of appellant by the Division of Youth Services. Section 39.-ll(2)(f), Florida Statutes (1977).
AFFIRMED.
ERVIN and BOOTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Linn v. State, 921 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…that the defendant should have known the instrument was forged. Instead, the State is required to prove the defendant had actual knowledge that the check had been forged. Such knowledge may be proved by circumstantial evidence. See J.N.W. v. State, 361 So. 2d 826, 826 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) (holding that “the circumstantial evidence of [defendant’s] guilty knowledge was sufficient” to support his conviction for uttering a forged instrument). Here, the State’s case against Linn relied on circumstantial evidence…
-
Ginn v. State, 26 So. 3d 706 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…that the checks were forged. When attempting to prove a charge of uttering a forged document, the State can establish a defendant’s knowledge that an instrument is forged through circumstantial evidence. See Linn, 921 So. 2d at 833; J.N.W. v. State, 361 So. 2d 826, 826 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). However, when the State relies entirely on circumstantial evidence to establish a defendant’s knowledge that an instrument was forged, the defendant’s reasonable hypothesis of innocence that he lacked knowledge that the ins…
-
Mills v. State, 777 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See G.R. v. State, 564 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); J.N.W. v. State, 361 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). STEVENSON, GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.…