Koltay v. State, 77-1930
| Decision Date | 14 July 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-1930,77-1930 |
| Citation | 360 So.2d 802 |
| Parties | Sandor KOLTAY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Charles R. Scully, St. Petersburg, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert J. Landry, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Appellant Sandor Koltay was charged in a one count information with violation of Section 812.021, Florida Statutes, the pertinent part of which alleged:
SANDOR KOLTAY, sometimes known as Alec Koltay . . . did take from the possession of the State of Florida, through its agent, John K. Kyle, with the intent to unlawfully deprive certain property, to-wit (sic); $218.40, lawful money of the United States of America, and an R.C.A. picture tube, type 25VABP22, date coded 72-48, by making false representations or pretense or false token to the said John K. Kyle the necessity for replacement of parts and labor for their installation and thereafter did secure the described property with the intent to unlawfully deprive. . . .
In essence appellant was charged with grand larceny by obtaining property by false pretenses. He pled not guilty and after trial by jury was found guilty of attempted grand larceny, a lesser included offense. He was sentenced to serve 120 days in the county jail and allowed credit for time served in jail awaiting trial. This appeal timely followed. We reverse.
Appellant has presented five points on this appeal for our consideration. After review in light of the applicable law, we conclude that only one point has merit. Appellant contends that the trial court erred, and we agree, in refusing to give an instruction on the essential elements necessary to convict him of the crime for which he was charged, and that as a result the jury was confused and unable to properly consider the case. In Paulk v. State, 344 So.2d 304 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977) we reiterated the essential elements of the crime of false pretense enumerated in Finley v. State, 152 Fla. 396, 12 So.2d 112 (1943): (1) false representation of a past or existing fact; (2) knowledge of its falsity; (3) intent to defraud; (4) reliance on the misstatement by the other party; and (5) surrender by the other party of property because of the representation.
At the charge conference the state requested the following instruction:
Fraud is committed when the defendant has made a false representation of a past or existing fact, that he knew of its falsity, that he did it with intent to defraud and that there was reliance on the false statement by the consumer and a loss of property or money by the consumer as a result of the false statement.
Counsel for appellant requested the following instruction:
Requested instruction No. 1 :
The essential elements of the crime of larceny which must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt before there can be a conviction in this case are that:
1. There must be represented a past or existing fact or circumstance by the defendant to another for the purpose of obtaining property from the latter.
2. The representation must be false in fact.
3. The representation must have been made with knowledge of its' (sic) falsity.
4. The representation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Olin
...case); People v. Butler, 413 Mich. 377, 319 N.W.2d 540 (1982); State v. Forsyth, 197 Mont. 248, 642 P.2d 1035 (1982); Koltay v. State, 360 So.2d 802 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1978). These decisions recognize the distinct, although complementary, functions of judges and juries. In a robbery case, for......
-
Adams v. State, 94-1945
...the victim's reliance on the false or misrepresented information is an essential element of the offense. See Koltay v. State, 360 So.2d 802 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978) (reliance on misstatement essential element of crime of false pretense; construing Sec. 812.021, Fla.Stat.); Green v. State, 190 So.......
-
Debenedictis v. Wainwright, 81-5677
...of the complaining victims, the amounts taken or attempted, and the dates of the fraudulent representations. See Koltay v. State, 360 So.2d 802, 803 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1978); Green v. State, 190 So.2d 614, 616 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1966). In response to a motion for a bill of particulars the state......
-
DeBenedictis v. Wainwright
...by the other party of property because of the representation. Green v. State, 190 So.2d 614 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); Koltay v. State, 360 So.2d 802 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). Petitioners recognize that questions involving the admission of evidence are not subject to review by federal habeas corpus unle......