State v. West
| Decision Date | 19 May 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 70--860,70--860 |
| Citation | 262 So.2d 457 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Gerald L. WEST, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles W. Musgrove, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellant.
L. B. Vocelle, Vero Beach, for appellee.
The State of Florida appeals from an order of dismissal entered by the trial court pursuant to Rule 1.190(c)(4), Fla.R.Crim.P., 33 F.S.A. That order was entered on motion of appellee that there were no material disputed facts and the undisputed facts did not establish a prima facie case of guilt. Appellee was charged with possession of a false, forged or counterfeit note in violation of Florida Statute § 831.11, F.S.A., which provides:
(Emphasis added.)
It was agreed by the attorneys for each party for the purposes of the motion that a single, counterfeit ten-dollar-bill was passed by Gerald L. West to an undercover agent. It was further agreed that the counterfeit bill was known by the agent to be a counterfeit bill and that it was stated by West to be a sample and that he could get several thousand dollars in such counterfeit money.
A reading of this statute reveals that the act prohibited must be accomplished with intent. The intent of the accused is an essential element of the offense charged. It is not usually the subject of direct proof. It is inferred from the acts of the parties and from the surrounding circumstances. Williams v. State, Fla.App.1970, 239 So.2d 127; Edwards v. State, Fla.App.1968, 213 So.2d 274; Groneau v. State, Fla.App.1967, 201 So.2d 599; Jones v. State, Fla.App.1966, 192 So.2d 285; Scott v. State, Fla.App.1962, 137 So.2d 625.
Being a state of mind, intent is usually a question of fact to be determined by the trier of fact. The trier of fact has the opportunity to observe the witnesses. From that observation, the trier of fact may determine the believability of that witness and the weight to be given his testimony. The demeanor of the witness, his frankness, or lack of frankness, his intelligence, his interest in the outcome of the case, and the reasonableness of the testimony presented, in the light of all the evidence in the case, are but a few of those factors which may play a part in making that determination.
The summary judgment procedure provided for by Rule 1.190(c)(4), Fla.R.Crim.P., is not as frequently encountered as a summary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ball v. Florida Podiatrist Trust
...Jones v. Stoutenburgh, 91 So.2d 299 (Fla.1956); Booth v. Mary Carter Paint Co., 182 So.2d 292 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966); State v. West, 262 So.2d 457 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972); Burroughs Corp. v. American Druggists' Insurance Co., 450 So.2d 540 (Fla. 2d DCA The majority notes that the Trustees could hav......
-
State v. Feagle, 90-946
...1246 (Fla. 1st DCA), pet. for rev. den., 476 So.2d 676 (Fla.1985); State v. Stenza, 453 So.2d 169 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); State v. West, 262 So.2d 457 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972) (trial court may not substitute itself for trier of fact in considering credibility of In the Motion to Dismiss Counts 2, 3 ......
-
S.T.N. v. State, 84-667
...1378 (Fla.1980); State v. Norris, 384 So.2d 298 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); State v. J.T.S., 373 So.2d 418 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); State v. West, 262 So.2d 457 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). We reversed a dismissal in State v. Alexander, supra, and Since the crux of the appellee's argument rests upon the allege......
-
State v. Hunwick, 83-1442
...by the jury. State v. Carroll, 404 So.2d 844 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Jones v. State, 392 So.2d 18 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); State v. West, 262 So.2d 457 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). On a motion to dismiss, the state is entitled to a construction most favorable to it; all inferences are resolved against the......