Grant v. State
Decision Date | 12 June 2009 |
Docket Number | No. 1D08-4536.,1D08-4536. |
Citation | 13 So.3d 163 |
Parties | Ashley Ellen GRANT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Michael E. Green, Orange Park, for Appellant.
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and Michael T. Kennett, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Ashley Ellen Grant appeals her conviction for uttering an altered check in violation of section 831.09, Florida Statutes (2007). She contends her motion for judgment of acquittal should have been granted because the evidence that she knew the check had been altered and that she intended to injure or defraud was insufficient. We affirm.
Summer Miller, a teller at Vystar Credit Union, testified that Ms. Grant presented the check for payment on October 17, 2007, saying that the person who had given her the check had misspelled her name: Named as payee was "ASHALY, GRANT." Ms. Grant endorsed the check twice, once spelling her name correctly and once spelling it as it was spelled on the front of the check, albeit without the comma between the first and last names. The teller also testified that she wrote down Ms. Grant's address, employment, home phone number, and driver's license number before cashing the check.
A week later, J.A. Stokes, a postal inspector, another postal inspector, and Detective Bill Roberts of the Clay County Sheriff's Office interviewed Ms. Grant at her residence where, Stokes testified, she acknowledged cashing the check: She told them that she was given the check by Laramie Gore, whom she had previously dated, acknowledging she had "doubts" about cashing the check; that she knew something was up; and that she was suspicious about what was going on. She told her interrogators that Mr. Gore told her he had the check made out to her because the person who drew the check owed him money, but he was unable to cash a check without identification. She also said she had not known that anyone owed Mr. Gore $900 (the approximate amount of the check), and that he gave her $200 after she cashed the check. She claimed this was because Mr. Gore had backed into her car two years earlier and still owed her for the damage that had caused.
Detective Roberts essentially corroborated this account of the interview. According to him, Ms. Grant told them that Laramie Gore called her and asked her to cash the check, telling her that a person who owed him money made the check payable to her because he did not have proper identification. Ms. Grant also told them, according to Detective Roberts, that, when Mr. Gore called and asked her to cash a check, she thought it was "funny" and that she should have known better, but cashed it anyway because she needed money; and that she did not think anyone should owe Laramie Gore $900.
Ms. Grant's written statement on the day of this initial interview reads:
Ms. Grant gave a second written statement at a police substation on November 13, 2007, after she was shown "photo lineups" including pictures of Laramie Gore and Ben Armington. Detective Roberts testified that between Ms. Grant's initial interview and her second written statement, he had also shown her a still photograph made from a surveillance videotape, which depicted Ben Armington removing an envelope from a mailbox. In her second statement, Ms. Grant wrote: Detective Roberts testified that it seemed Ms. Grant was being "more defensive" of Laramie Gore during the second interview.
Teressa Hughes testified that she had written the check, but that she had made it payable to "ASI," an insurance company, not appellant; and that she had put it in an envelope, and placed the envelope in the mailbox behind her home, which also served as her office. Examining her bank records online a few days later, she discovered the check had been altered so that it was payable to "Ashaly, Grant." Ms. Hughes, who has a video surveillance system outside her home, testified she reviewed tapes and found a videotape depicting a man apparently taking an envelope from her mailbox, then turned the videotape over to police.
At the close of the state's case, the defense moved for judgment of acquittal, arguing the prosecution had not established that Ms. Grant knew the check had been altered, or proven in any other way that she had the intent to defraud or injure anyone. Defense counsel argued the case was "totally circumstantial" and that the evidence was insufficient to overcome a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The trial judge denied the motion, ruling there was evidence that she knew or should have known1 the check was altered, and that, if the jury found she had knowledge of the alteration, it could infer that she presented the check intending to injure or defraud the person who had drawn it.
"The courts should not grant a motion for judgment of acquittal unless the evidence is such that no view which the jury may lawfully take of it favorable to the opposite party can be sustained under the law." Lynch v. State, 293 So.2d 44, 45 (Fla.1974). But the state may rely on circumstantial evidence. See Grover v. State, 581 So.2d 1379, 1380 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) ( ; Szilagyi v. State, 564 So.2d 644, 646 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (). Like intent, knowledge (or its absence) must often be inferred from surrounding circumstances. See Heineman v. State, 327 So.2d 898, 898 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) ( ); State v. Norris, 384 So.2d 298, 299 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980) ( ).
Ms. Grant argues that, because evidence that she knew the check to be altered and that she intended to injure or defraud was circumstantial, the heightened standard set forth in State v. Law, 559 So.2d 187 (Fla.1989), applies. In Law, our supreme court announced that a
special standard of review of the sufficiency of the evidence applies where a conviction is wholly based on circumstantial evidence. Where the only proof of guilt is circumstantial, no matter how strongly the evidence may suggest guilt, a conviction cannot be...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Knight v. State, 5D11–2875.
...of child pornography because “[t]he only element established through circumstantial evidence was possession”); Grant v. State, 13 So.3d 163, 167 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (explaining that special standard only applies to cases in which all of the evidence is circumstantial and expressly rejecting......
-
Woodruff-Sawyer & Co. v. Ghilotti
... ... Indeed, Daimler reiterated the due process inquiry undertaken in Goodyear, "whether that corporation's affiliations with the State are so continuous and systematic as to render [it] essentially at home in the forum State." 571 U.S. at 139, 134 S.Ct. 746 (quoting Goodyear, 564 ... ...
-
Gerdau Ameristeel United States, Inc. v. Davenport Elec. Contract Co.
... ... LAW: The terms and conditions provided herein and the rights of all parties hereunder shall be construed under and governed by the laws of the State of Florida. Venue shall be in Hillsborough County Courts, Florida; said courts to have jurisdiction over the parties.Doc. 12-1 at p. 7 (emphasis ... ...
-
Ruth's Chris Steak House Franchise, Inc. v. T-FAB, Inc.
... ... T-Fab is a Nevada corporation with its principal place of business in LasPage 2Vegas, Nevada, and Defendant Taylor is a citizen of the state of Nevada.1 This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case based on both the presence of a federal question, 28 U.S.C. 1331, and ... ...
-
The trial (conduct of trial, jury instructions, verdict)
...and there is direct evidence that defendant passed the check, the case is not based wholly on circumstantial evidence. Grant v. State, 13 So. 3d 163 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) Circumstantial evidence of identity is sufficient to sustain a conviction is a case where a child sex abuse victim is unab......