Brown v. State

Decision Date15 April 1931
Citation101 Fla. 223,133 So. 866
PartiesBROWN v. STATE.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Error to Circuit Court, Walton County; A. G. Campbell, Judge.

A. C Brown was convicted of secreting with intent to embezzle certain property delivered to him as administrator, and he brings error.

Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court.

SYLLABUS

An indictment under section 7245, C. G. L., section 5144, R. G S., charging that the defendant did then and there 'feloniously and fraudulently conceal for his own use certain property, then and there being the subject of larceny, delivered to him the said A. C. Brown, by virtue of his appointment and status as administrator of the estate of J. J. Brown, deceased, by action of the County Judge's Court of Walton County, Florida, to-wit, three hundred and forty six dollars and twenty-five cents of the value of $346.25, in money, currency and coin of the United States of America, a better describption whereof is to the Grand Jurors unknown, the said property being of the property of the estate of J. J. Brown, deceased,' sufficiently charges an offense against the laws of the state of Florida under that statute.

A motion to quash an indictment is properly denied where the indictment is not so vague, indistinct, and indefinite as to mislead the accused and embarrass him in the preparation of his defense or expose him after conviction or acquittal to substantial danger of a new prosecution for the same offense.

Where an indictment is found under section 7245, C. G. L., section 5144, R. G. S., for secreting property with intent to embezzle same in violation of such statute, the ownership of the property so secreted may be properly stated to have been in the estate of a decedent, when the indictment shows that the defendant himself was appointed as administrator of such estate and in that capacity is charged with having secreted property of such estate with intent to embezzle same.

There is nothing in the language, context, or history of section 7245, C. G. L., section 5144, R. G. S., which supports the contention that an administrator, who secretes with intent to embezzle the goods of an estate delivered to him in his capacity as administrator, is to be excluded from being held criminally liable under the language of the act which is by no means restrictive in its scope, or as to persons within its purview.

COUNSEL

W. T. Bludworth, of De Funiak Springs, for plaintiff in error.

Cary C Landis, Atty. Gen., and Roy Campbell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

OPINION

DAVIS J.

Plaintiff in error was convicted under section 7245, C. G. L., section 5144, R. G. S., of secreting, with intent to embezzle, certain property which had been delivered to him as administrator of the estate of J. J. Brown, deceased.

The indictment under which the conviction was had charges that the defendant did then and there 'feloniously and fraudulently conceal for his own use certain property, then and there being the subject of larceny, delivered to him the said A. C. Brown, by virtue of his appointment and status as administrator of the estate of J. J. Brown, deceased, by action of the County Judge's Court of Walton County, Florida, to-wit, three hundred and forty six dollars and twenty-five cents of the value of $346.25, in money, currency and coin of the United States of America, a better description whereof is to the Grand Jurors unknown, the said property being of the property of the estate of J. J. Brown, deceased.'

This indictment is not so vague, indistinct, and indefinite as to mislead the accused and embarrass him in the preparation of his defense or expose him after conviction or acquittal to substantial danger of a new prosecution for the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • State v. Pierce, 35695
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • July 19, 1967
    ...was made, And from the date of that demand the statute of limitations began to run.' (Emphasis supplied.) Also compare Brown v. State, 101 Fla. 223, 133 So. 866, and Fitch v. State, 135 Fla. 361, 185 So. 435, 125 A.L.R. Thus the decision under review is quashed with directions that the judg......
  • Olds v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • April 15, 1931
    ...... . . The. judgment is reversed, with directions to overrule the. demurrer to the answer to the amended alternative writ of. mandamus and for further proceedings in accordance with this. opinion. this opinion. . . BUFORD,. C. P., and WHITFIELD, ELLIS, TERRELL, and BROWN, JJ., concur. ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT