Shargaa v. State
| Decision Date | 20 December 1955 |
| Parties | B. Babe SHARGAA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Taylor, Boehme & Yocom, Miami, for appellant.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., Bart L. Cohen, and Jos. P. Manners, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant was tried and convicted in the Criminal Court of Record, Broward County, on the following information:
'* * * that B. Babe Shargaa on the 24th day of December A.D. 1953, in the County and State aforesaid, did then and there unlawfully utter, issue and deliver to Bernard Goldman a check and written order on a bank for the payment of money, which said check and written money order is in words and figures following, to-wit:
Miami Beach, Florida
Dec. 24, 1953
The Sum .... 100 Dols 00 Cts Dollars
/s/ B. Babe Shargaa
the said defendant well knowing at the time of so uttering, issuing and delivering such check and written order that the maker and drawer thereof did not have sufficient funds on deposit in or credit with such bank sufficient to meet and pay the same on presentation, contrary to the form of the Statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Florida.'
He was adjudged to be guilty, was sentenced to serve three months in the county jail and has appealed from that judgment.
The first question is whether or not in a prosecution for uttering a worthless check, when the state's only witness testified on direct examination as to a 'business arrangement' with defendant, should the court on cross-examination preclude defendant from further examination as to said arrangement.
The record does not justify the question proposed but rather tends to show that the attorney for appellant was permitted to submit the 'business arrangement' of defendant and the witness to the jury. The evidence shows that defendant managed the financial affairs for repair and remodeling several houses owned by a Miss Annie Johnson. It appears that appellant paid the prosecuting witness from week to week certain amounts to cover weekly bills and payroll for construction work. Appellant did not show the relevance of the business arrangement. The transcript shows that he was permitted to go into the business arrangement sufficiently to satisfy said requirements on cross-examination. If he wanted more, he should have made the prosecuting witness his own.
The second question is whether or not the evidence of guilt under the statute was such that the court should have directed a verdict for the defendant.
Section 832.05(2), Florida Statutes, F.S.A., is as follows:
'It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to draw, make, utter, issue or deliver to another any check, draft, or other written order on any bank or depository for the payment of money or its equivalent, knowing at the time of the drawing, making, uttering, issuing or delivering such check or draft that the maker or drawer thereof has not sufficient funds on deposit in or credit with such bank or depository with which to pay the same on presentation; * * *.'
The state proved the issuance of the check in question, that the prosecuting witness deposited it in his bank account and that it was returned marked 'insufficient funds.' It was offered in evidence. This was sufficient to prove the state's case under the quoted statute.
Section 832.05(5), Florida Statutes, F.S.A. (1953 worthless check act), also has a bearing on the question, the pertinent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dirk v. State
...(Fla.App.1967), upholding the validity of this statute against constitutional attacks as those now presented by appellant. Shargaa v. State, 84 So.2d 42 (Fla.1955); Ennis v. State, 95 So.2d 20 (Fla.1957), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 868, 78 S.Ct. 117, 2 L.Ed.2d 74. See also, McQuagge v. State, 8......
-
Ennis v. State
...element that may be required by the statute. It charges the offence substantially the same as is set forth in the case of Shargaa v. State, Fla., 84 So.2d 42. Question V. No substantial error has been pointed out to any charge to the jury, and no objection seems to have been made in the cou......
-
State ex rel. Shargaa v. Culver
...is being legally restrained as a second offender. We here renew our acquaintance with an old patron of our judicial system. Shargaa v. State, Fla.1955, 84 So.2d 42; Perry v. Beckerman, Fla.1957, 97 So.2d 860; Shargaa v. State, Fla.1958, 102 So.2d 814; Shargaa v. State, Fla.1958, 102 So.2d 8......
-
Coxwell v. State
...at 894-95.7 62 So.2d at 895, quoting 58 Am.Jur. Witnesses § 632, at 352 (1948).8 For this proposition the state refers us to Shargaa v. State, 84 So.2d 42 (Fla.1955), where the relevance of a defense inquiry was never established. The same can hardly by said of the question propounded by de......