Prough v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Prough v. State

228 So. 2d 629

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 12, 1969

DocketNo. 69-327

StatusPublished

This text of 228 So. 2d 629 (Prough 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

Prough v. State, 228 So. 2d 629 (Fla. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial judge recognized the requirement of Lampley v. State, Fla.App.1968, 214 So.2d 515, that there be evidence of scienter in a prosecution for uttering a forged instrument, but entered judgment of conviction after verdict because that case had not been followed in the Second District. We approve the language of Judge Charles Carroll’s opinion in that case and accordingly reverse and remand with directions to discharge the defendant.

HOBSON, C. J., and MANN and Mc-NULTY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The trial judge recognized the requirement of Lampley v. State, Fla.App.1968, 214 So.2d 515, that there be evidence of scienter in a prosecution for uttering a forged instrument, but entered judgment of conviction after verdict because that case had not been followed in the Second District. We approve the language of Judge Charles Carroll’s opinion in that case and accordingly reverse and remand with directions to discharge the defendant.

HOBSON, C. J., and MANN and Mc-NULTY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 So. 2d 629, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prough-v-state-fladistctapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack