Haynes v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided July 8, 1941

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1941-07-08

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently June 1948

2 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““The record shows that the defendant by false and fraudulent representations as to material existing facts and imposing on the confidence of his victim, procured large sums of money from her to be used by him for a stated purpose. The logical conclusion is that he practiced the deception with the purpose and intent to deprive the victim of her money without consideration and to convert the same to his own use.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Campbell v. State

Relies on Bussart v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1941-07-08

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Bufokd, J.

¶1 On writ of error we review judgment of conviction of grand larceny.

¶2 The record shows that the defendant by false and fraudulent representations as to material existing facts and imposing on the confidence of his victim, procured large sums of money from her to be used by him for a stated purpose. The logical conclusion is that he practiced the deception with the purpose and intent to deprive the victim of her money without consideration and to convert the same to his own use.

¶3 The case is ruled by our opinion and judgment in the case of Bussart v. State, 128 Fla. 891, 176 Sou. 32.

¶4 The judgment is affirmed.

¶5 So ordered.

Whitfield, Terrell, Chapman, and Adams, J. J., concur. Brown, C. J., and Thomas, J., dissent.