Adams v. State, HH-120
Decision Date | 24 February 1978 |
Docket Number | No. HH-120,HH-120 |
Parties | Isham W. ADAMS, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Michael J. Minerva, Public Defender and Louis G. Carres, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. and Wallace E. Albritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Adams was convicted of unlawfully obtaining property by means of a worthless check he knew to be worthless, contrary to Section 832.05(3), Florida Statutes (1975), which provides in part:
It shall be unlawful for any person, . . . to obtain any . . . goods . . . by means of a check . . . upon any bank . . ., knowing at the time of the making, drawing, uttering, issuing or delivering of said check . . . that the maker thereof has not sufficient funds on deposit in or credit with such bank . . . with which to pay the same upon presentation . . . .
Adams urges that the trial court erred in denying his request for a charge that intent to defraud is an essential element of the offense. We lack a transcript of the court's charge, but the transcript of the charge conference indicates, and we must assume, that the court charged the jury using Florida Standard Jury Instruction (Criminal) 2.07 (2d ed. 1976), which incorporates the statutory defense:
It is a defense to this charge that at the time of delivery of the check the said payee knew, had been expressly notified or had good reason to believe prior to the drawing or uttering of the check that the person drawing the check did not have on deposit or to his credit with the bank sufficient funds to insure payment of the check upon presentation.
I do not read Ennis v. State, 95 So.2d 20 (Fla.1957), cert. den., 355 U.S. 868, 78 S.Ct. 117, 2 L.Ed.2d 74 (1957), as does the majority, as not requiring an intent to defraud. Ennis was concerned only with the constitutionality of Section 832.05, Florida Statutes (1955), which did not include within its provisions, as did a predecessor statute, the intent to defraud. The court was not confronted with a situation, as are we, in which a request to so instruct was...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Waters v. State, DD-351
...Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Charles W. Musgrove, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee. PER CURIAM. Affirmed on authority of Adams v. State, 356 So.2d 346 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), and State v. Berry, 358 So.2d 545 BOYER, Acting C. J., and MILLS and ERVIN, JJ., concur. ...
-
Jones v. State, GG-265
...element of the crime proscribed by Section 832.05(3), Florida Statutes (1975). This court's recent decision in Adams v. State, 356 So.2d 346 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), considered the identical issue, and held that intent to defraud is not an essential element of the offense proscribed by Section ......