THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
DUDLEY COHN, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The State appeals from a trial court's orders granting the defendant a judgment of acquittal and a new trial following a jury verdict finding him guilty of scheme to defraud in the sale of East Everglades property. The appellate court reverses, finding the evidence of guilt was more than sufficient and the trial court's determinations lack support.
The evidence of guilt was more than sufficient to support the jury verdict, and there is no support for the trial court's determinations that the verdict was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence or that testimony unfavorable to the defendant was improperly admitted. Both orders granting the judgment of acquittal and new trial are reversed.
[1] Evidence of guilt is sufficient when it supports a jury's finding of a scheme to defraud in the sale of property.
[2] A trial court's determination that a jury verdict is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence must be supported by evidence.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“It is clear that (a) the evidence of guilt was more than sufficient”
Establishes the appellate court's finding that the jury verdict was supported by sufficient evidence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA jury found the defendant guilty of committing a scheme to defraud in the sale of East Everglades property under Florida Statutes § 817.034(3)(d) and…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Organized Fraud cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The State appeals from alternative orders respectively granting the defendant a judgment of acquittal and a new trial after a jury found him guilty of committing a scheme to defraud in the sale of East Everglades property. See § 817.034(3)(d), Fla. Stat.1; § 817.034(4)(a)(l), Fla. Stat.2 It is clear that (a) the evidence of guilt was more than sufficient, see Boyd v. State, 910 So. 2d 167 (Fla.2005); United States v. Thomas, 377 F. 3d 232 (2d Cir.2004); United States v. Amrep Corp., 560 F. 2d 539 (2d Cir.1977); Sewall v. State, 783 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); State v. Summerlot, 711 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Brewer v. State, 413 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); and (b) there is nothing to support the trial court’s determinations that the verdict was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, see Tibbs v. State, 397 So. 2d 1120 (Fla.1981), aff'd 457 U.S. 31, 102 S.Ct. 2211, 72 L.Ed.2d 652 (1982); Winnemore v. State, 150 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963); and that testimony unfavorable to the defendant had been improperly admitted at trial. See Dixon v. State, 911 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Reed v. State, 883 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Bulkmatic Transp. Co. v. Taylor, 860 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Midtown Enters, v. Local Contractors, 785 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). Consequently, both orders under review are reversed and the cause is remanded for entry of judgment against the defendant in accordance with the jury verdict and for appropriate sentencing.
Reversed.3
. “(d) ‘Scheme to defraud’ means a systematic, ongoing course of conduct with intent to defraud one or more persons, or with intent to obtain property from one or more persons by false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises or willful misrepresentations of a future act.”
. The statute provides: "(a) Any person who engages in a scheme to defraud and obtains property thereby is guilty of organized fraud, punishable as follows: 1. If the amount of property obtained has an aggregate value of $50,000 or more, the violator is guilty of a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.”
. We neither preclude the previous trial judge from presiding over the post mandate proceedings nor require him to do so.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited (12 total)
- Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31 (U.S. 1982)
- Delbert Lee Tibbs v. State, 397 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 1981)
- Brewer v. State, 413 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Lucious Boyd v. State, 910 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 1998)
- United States v. Amrep Corp., 560 F.2d 539 (2d Cir. 1977)
- Sewall v. State, 783 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Midtown Enters., Inc. v. Local Contractors, Inc., 785 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Bulkmatic Transp. Co. v. Taylor, 860 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- AI Winmemore v. State, 150 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- State v. Dirk Summerlot, 711 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)