Crawford v. State
| Decision Date | 21 May 1927 |
| Parties | CRAWFORD v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Criminal Court of Record, Dade County; Tom Norfleet Judge.
Winston J. Crawford was convicted of embezzlement, and he brings error.
Reversed.
Syllabus by the Court
Information charging embezzlement substantially in statute's language, is sufficient on motion to quash (Rev. Gen. St 1920, §§ 5146, 6068). Where an information charges embezzlement substantially in the language of the statute the generality of averment permissible under sections 5146 and 6068 of Revised General Statutes is deemed sufficient, in view of the right of the defendant to demand a bill of particulars when necessary to give him adequate notice of the particulars of the charge which he is called upon to meet.
Interpolation, in information for embezzlement, of clause unnecessary under statute, will be considered as surplusage, if it did not mislead or embarrass defendant; in information for embezzlement, interpolation in information, 'of note in the amount of $1,000, lawful money of the United States of America,' may be considered surplusage (Rev. Gen. St. 1920, §§ 5146, 6068). The interpolation, in an information charging embezzlement, of a clause unnecessary under the statute to the sufficiency of the information, will be considered as mere surplusage, where it does not appear that the defendant was misled or embarrassed thereby in the preparation and making of his defense.
When prosecution relies on evidence of embezzling note, evidence of its value must be submitted (Rev. Gen. St. 1920, § 6068). When the prosecution in an embezzlement case relies upon evidence of the embezzlement of a promissory note, there must be some evidence submitted of the value of the note, as this is required by the statute and has an important bearing upon the punishment, whether as for a felony or a misdemeanor.
George M. Okell, of Miami, for plaintiff in error.
J. B. Johnson, Atty. Gen., and Roy Campbell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
While the information in this case is not very clearly drawn denial of the motion to quash the same does not constitute reversible error, when considered in the light of section 6068, R. G. S., as construed in the cases of Thalheim v. State, 38 Fla. 169, 20 So. 938, and Brown v. State (Fla.) 109 So. 438. See, also, Smith v. State (Fla.) 112 So. 70. As will be seen from a reading of the Thalheim Case, the generality of allegation of the offense of embezzlement as authorized by the statute referred to is permitted and held to be constitutional, in view of the defendant's right, upon proper application by him, when the indictment or information does not give him adequate notice of the charge he is expected to meet, to apply for and be furnished with a bill of particulars by order of court. The information in this case charges the embezzlement of $1,000 of the money of Cynthia Cook. Under the statute referred to, where an indictment or information charges the embezzlement of money to a certain amount, without specifying any particulars of such embezzlement, evidence may be given, on the trial, of the embezzlement, within six months after the time stated in the indictment, of money, notes, check, draft, or other security for money, of such person, etc. Therefore the additional words in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial