Monteresi v. State
| Decision Date | 01 June 1948 |
| Citation | 160 Fla. 489,35 So.2d 582 |
| Parties | MONTERESI v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Appeal from Criminal Court of Record, Hillsborough County; John R. Himes, Judge.
William C. Piecre and Cyrus W. Fields, both of Tampa, for appellant.
J. Tom Watson, Atty. Gen. and Reeves Bowen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This appeal is from a conviction, under Sec. 812.11, Fla.Stat., 1941, F.S.A., for receiving certain money with knowledge that same was embezzled. The only question is whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction.
The evidence presents an ugly picture demonstrating how vice and gambling will destroy legitimate business in a community if permitted to carry on its evil trade. Here a trusted employee, over a period of years--from day to day, misappropriated about $9,514.30 of his employer's money and gave it to appellant to play a number game commonly known as Bolita. Appellant would call upon the employee just before or after the usual working hours to get the money. The sums ranged from one to three hundred dollars a week. In the meantime all winnings were played back into the game. Finally the employer was called to meet an overdraft and learned, for the first time, of the embezzlement.
It was necessary for the state to show that appellant knew or knew of such facts as would put a man of ordinary intelligence and caution on inquiry that the money was embezzled. In this regard this statute is similar to the companion law of receiving stolen property. Sec. 811.16, Fla.Stat., 1941, F.S.A.
We find a total lack of evidence to meet the announced rule. We cannot attach guilty knowledge to appellant simply because the money was passed to him out of the usual hours of business and out of the presence of others. The evidence, in its present state, is insufficient to sustain a conviction. The judgment is reversed and a new trial is granted.
Reversed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stull v. People
...State v. Guilfoyle, 109 Conn. 124, 145 A. 761. There is considerable similarity between the present case and the case of Monteresi v. State, 160 Fla. 489, 35 So.2d 582. We '* * * Here a trusted employee, over a period of years--from day to day, misappropriated about $9,514.30 of his employe......
-
Liebler v. State, 75-859
...Fla. 100, 172 So. 708. See also Franklin v. State, 66 Fla. 213, 63 So. 418; Cortes v. State, 135 Fla. 589, 185 So. 323; Monteresi v. State, 160 Fla. 489, 35 So.2d 582. Cf. State v. Graham, Fla.1970, 238 So.2d On consideration of this appeal we find no reversible error has been shown. There ......
-
Mayer v. State, 69--529
...which would have put him, as a man of ordinary intelligence and caution, on inquiry as to its stolen character. See Monteresi v. State, 1948, 160 Fla. 489, 35 So.2d 582. Mr. Prager testified for the state that to the 'untrained eye' there was nothing about the gun's appearance which would r......
- Camp Montgomery v. Board of Public Instruction of Alachua County, Florida