Azrak v. State, 65-467
| Citation | 183 So.2d 712 |
| Decision Date | 08 March 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 65-467,65-467 |
| Parties | James AZRAK, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Ben Cohen, Miami Beach, Horton & Schwartz, Miami, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Arden M. Siegendorf, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before TILLMAN PEARSON, CARROLL and SWANN, JJ.
The appellant was informed against, tried before a jury and convicted of a crime of bribery as set forth in § 838.011, Fla.Stat.1963, F.S.A. 1 This appeal is from the judgment and sentence entered pursuant to the jury verdict.
The appellant questions the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment. The facts necessary for a decision are as follows: The appellant was a businessman against whom numerous complaints had been received by the Better Business Division of the Miami Chamber of Commerce, the Better Business Bureau of Greater Miami, the State Attorney's office, and the City of Miami. A deputy sheriff was assigned to investigate these complaints, but no criminal proceeding was initiated. In the process of his investigation, the deputy sheriff complied a list of 25 complainers. He went to the appellant and discussed with him one or more of these complaints and informed appellant that he had a list of 25 complainers. The appellant asked for a copy of the list and was told by the deputy sheriff that he could only receive one by authority of the State Attorney. Appellant offered to purchase the list, and subsequently, after the deputy had revealed the identity and address of one of the persons on the list, the appellant paid $50 for a copy of the list of complainers. Thus, the question presented is whether or not the purchase of a copy of the list constituted the crime of bribery.
The elements of the offense of bribery have been generally set forth as: (1) knowledge on the part of the accused of the official capacity of the person to whom the bribe is offered; (2) the offering of a thing of value, and (3) the intent to influence the official action of the person to whom the bribe is offered. 2 Brunson v. State, 70 Fla. 387, 70 So. 390 (1915); Colson v. State, 71 Fla. 267, 71 So. 277 (1916).
In connection with the third element listed above, it should be noted that the language of the statute requires an intent or purpose to influence 'on any matter, question, cause or proceeding which may be pending or may by law be brought before him in his public capacity, or with the intent or purpose to influence any act or omission relating to any public duty of such' official. There would appear to be no rational relationship between the duties imposed by law upon the deputy sheriff to investigate the appellant and the sale of a copy of a list of names to the appellant. It is suggested by the State that there might have been some ominous purpose in the mind of the appellant, but the only purpose suggested at the trial was that he might wish to make restitution. Certainly restitution is a proper and worthwhile endeavor which has no legal effect upon the possible criminal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nell v. State
...the salinity line in Collier County . . .' (Emphasis supplied). The elements of the crime of bribery were set forth in Azrak v. State, Fla.App.1966, 183 So.2d 712, as '(1) knowledge on the part of the accused of the official capacity of the person to whom the bribe is offered; (2) the offer......
-
Nell v. State
...of a thing of value, and (3) the intent to influence the Official action of the person to whom the bribe is offered. Azrak v. State, 183 So.2d 712, (Fla.App.1966), Brunson v. State, supra, Colson v. State, supra. This last element with which we are now primarly concerned has been given a de......
-
Jamiel v. State, 68-462
...Fla.App.1958, 106 So.2d 607; Nelson v. State, Fla.App.1963, 157 So.2d 96; Margolis v. State, Fla.App.1965, 171 So.2d 546; Azrak v. State, Fla.App.1966, 183 So.2d 712; 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals, § ...