Murray v. State
| Decision Date | 04 April 1927 |
| Citation | 112 So. 575,93 Fla. 706 |
| Parties | MURRAY v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Criminal Court of Record, Hillsborough County; W. Raleigh Petteway, Judge.
Alexander Murray was convicted of embezzlement, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
In prosecution for embezzlement and larceny, whether defendant formed felonious intent to appropriate property at or before acquiring possession of it as agent, or subsequently, held jury question. Held, that, under the facts of this case, it was a question for the jury to decided whether the plaintiff in error formed the felonious intent to appropriate the property to his own use at or before the time he obtained possession of the same as the agent or bailee of the owner or custodian, or subsequently to such time, and verdict finding plaintiff in error guilty of embezzlement therefore sustainable under the evidence.
W. K. Zewadski, Jr., and Wm. C. Pierce, both of Tampa, for plaintiff in error.
J. B Johnson, Atty. Gen., and H. E. Carter, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
In this case the plaintiff in error and one Mose Pinkney were jointly informed against. The information charged them in one count with embezzlement, and in the other with larceny. There was a severance granted, and, at the close of the state's evidence on the trial of plaintiff in error he moved the court for an instructed verdict on both counts. The court granted the motion as to the larceny count. The plaintiff in error was convicted and sentenced on the embezzlement count. The chief distinction between larceny and embezzlement lies in the character of the acquirement of possession of the property. See Sykes v. State, 78 Fla. 167, 82 So. 778. The evidence in this case might well have sustained a conviction for larceny, for there was ground for the inference that possession of the money was obtained by trick, device, or fraud. Neither of the accused persons took the stand. The question of the intent, which governed them when they acquired possession of the money, had to be inferred from all the circumstances. If the court and jury saw fit, by inference from the evidence, to give them credit for a lawful intent at the time they induced the aggrieved party to intrust them with the possession of her money as her agents for the purpose disclosed by the evidence, and found that the crime consisted of their unlawful appropriation of the money after so obtaining lawful possession, it hardly lies in the mouth of either to say that the verdict of embezzlement should be set aside upon the ground that the evidence showed that they intended to appropriate the money to their own use at the time they induced the injured party to turn it over to them, and that the agency thus vested was induced by their own...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Casso v. State
...property by trick, device, or fraud, intending to appropriate it, is guilty of 'larceny' on subsequent appropriation. Murray v. State, 93 Fla. 706, 112 So. 575; McKinley v. State, 102 Fla. 632, 136 So. 380; Finlayson v. State, 46 Fla. 81, 35 So. 203; Knight v. State, Fla.1950, 46 So.2d 497.......
-
Fitch v. State
... ... same to his own use, the owner intending to part with the ... [135 Fla. 368] possession only, commits larceny when he ... subsequently appropriates it; that 'the consent of the ... owner in surrendering possession of the property must be as ... broad as the taking.' To like effect see Murray v ... State, 93 Fla. 706, 112 So. 575 ... But ... there is a strong line of authorities in support of the ... proposition that at common law one who has merely the custody ... of a chattel, as distinguished from its possession, is guilty ... of larceny, if, with felonious intent, ... ...
-
Skipper v. State
... ... offense denounced by the statute ... The ... gist of the offense under that section is a breach of trust ... See Tipton v. State, 53 Fla. 69, 43 So. 684 ... The ... statute is discussed in Dwyer v. State, 93 Fla. 777, ... 112 So. 62; Murray v. State, 93 Fla. 706, 112 So ... 575; Thomas v. State, 36 Fla. 109, 18 So. 331; ... Neal v. State, 55 Fla. 140, 46 So. 845, 19 L. R. A ... (N. S.) 371 ... If the ... offense under the statute is alleged in a general way as our ... statute permits a bill of particulars is proper ... ...
-
Mckinley v. State
...or fraud, with the intent to appropriate such property to his own use, we would not be disposed to disturb the verdict. Murray v. State, 93 Fla. 706, 112 So. 575, 17 R. L. 13-15. The burden was upon the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt every element necessary to constitute the crime......