Posner v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Posner v. State

619 So. 2d 461, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 6147, 1993 WL 191979

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 9, 1993

DocketNo. 92-1390

StatusPublished

This text of 619 So. 2d 461 (Posner v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Posner v. State, 619 So. 2d 461, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 6147, 1993 WL 191979 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Pamela Posner appeals her conviction of obtaining property in return for a worthless check, contrary to section 832.05(4), Florida Statutes (1989).

Appellant maintains that the trial court erred in denying her motion for judgment of acquittal because, relying on Harris v. State, 123 So.2d 752 (Fla. 3d DCA1960), quashed in part, 136 So.2d 633 (Fla.1962); Helms v. State, 128 So.2d 756 (Fla. 1st DCA1961); and Strickland v. State, 559 So.2d 1288 (Fla. 2d DCA1990), the state’s evidence did not establish the requisite causal connection between the $4,591.00 check and the goods earlier received necessary to prove a violation of section 832.-05(4), obtaining property in exchange for a worthless check. We agree and reverse.

We make no determination as to whether appellant may be guilty of the misdemean- or of violating section 832.05(2), Florida Statutes (1989), because of the factual question of whether the transaction in issue involved a “post-dated check” which constitutes a defense to that misdemeanor.

REVERSED.

HERSEY, GUNTHER and STONE, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Pamela Posner appeals her conviction of obtaining property in return for a worthless check, contrary to section 832.05(4), Florida Statutes (1989).

Appellant maintains that the trial court erred in denying her motion for judgment of acquittal because, relying on Harris v. State, 123 So.2d 752 (Fla. 3d DCA1960), quashed in part, 136 So.2d 633 (Fla.1962); Helms v. State, 128 So.2d 756 (Fla. 1st DCA1961); and Strickland v. State, 559 So.2d 1288 (Fla. 2d DCA1990), the state’s evidence did not establish the requisite causal connection between the $4,591.00 check and the goods earlier received necessary to prove a violation of section 832.-05(4), obtaining property in exchange for a worthless check. We agree and reverse.

We make no determination as to whether appellant may be guilty of the misdemean- or of violating section 832.05(2), Florida Statutes (1989), because of the factual question of whether the transaction in issue involved a “post-dated check” which constitutes a defense to that misdemeanor.

REVERSED.

HERSEY, GUNTHER and STONE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

619 So. 2d 461, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 6147, 1993 WL 191979, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/posner-v-state-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack