Davis v. State

• Decision Date: 03 July 1973
• Docket Number: No. 72--172,72--172
• Citation: 281 So.2d 551
• Parties: William Hardy DAVIS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 551

281 So.2d 551

William Hardy DAVIS, Appellant, v.The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72--172.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 3, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 12, 1973.

William John Mason, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Joel D. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, CHARLES CARROLL and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Leatherby Insurance Company, a foreign corporation, entered into a written agreement with Statewide Underwriters, Inc., a Florida corporation of which the appellantWilliam Hardy Davis was president.Thereunder the latter corporation, acting as agent for the former, was to solicit the sale of insurance policies, collect the premiums thereon and place them in a trust account to be remitted to the insurance company which would then compensate the Florida corporation for its expenses and commissions thereon.¹

By an information the appellant and another person were charged with grand larceny, the information alleging that between certain dates they did 'unlawfully and feloneously take, steal and carry away certain personal property, to-wit: CASH in the sum of approximately One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00), good and lawful money of the United States of America, property of another, to-wit: Leatherby Insurance Co., of New York, a corporation,' etc.

On trial before a jury David was found guilty.He was so adjudged, and was sentenced to five years imprisonment.This appeal followed.

Five points presented in the brief of the appellant have been considered in the light of the record, briefs and argument, and we hold that no reversible error has been shown.

A requirement for production of records of the agent corporation, of which the appellant was president, did not constitute a violation of the appellant's privilege against self-incrimination.State ex rel. Losey v. Willard, Fla.1951, 54 So.2d 183;79 C.J.S.Searches and Seizures§ 37.Denial of defendant's motion for continuance was within the sound judicial discretion of the court.No abuse of discretion in that regard was shown.No error was committed by receiving in evidence photographs and microfilm copies of business records of the agent corporation. §§ 92.32and92.29 Fla.Stat., F.S.A.On the evidence submitted, the trial court did not commit error in denying the defendant's motion for directed verdict.The defendant's motion for mistrial for remarks made by the prosecutor before the jury claimed to be prejudicial, was properly denied by the trial...