NICKDOMIAS HEATH, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Heath appeals his conviction for forgery and uttering a forged check. The court affirmed his forgery convictions but reversed his uttering convictions, finding insufficient evidence connecting him to the actual use of the forged checks.
The court reversed Heath's convictions on Count II (uttering and publishing forged instruments) in all four informations due to insufficient evidence, but affirmed his convictions on Count I (forgery) in all four informations.
“There is nothing in the record to connect Heath with the uttering and publishing of any of the forged bank checks in question to any of the supermarkets set out in the informations with intent to defraud.”
Establishes the critical missing element of the uttering offense—no evidence linking Heath to the actual use of the forged checks
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHeath and another person gave 48 blank checks to Barbara Lutz and instructed her to sign a forged name on them. Lutz testified she signed the checks a…
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 Uttering A Forged Instrument cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant-appellant, Nickdomias Heath, appeals a final judgment and sentence rendered pursuant to a jury verdict of guilty to both counts as charged in each of four informations.
Four informations for forgery and uttering a forged check were filed against defendants, Nickdomias Heath, Thomas Atkinson (a/k/a Barry Draper), Barbara Lutz and Robert M. Rivera (a/k/a Michael Rivera). In each information, Count I alleged that defendant Heath committed forgery on the face of a bank check. In each information, Count II alleged that defendant Heath did utter and publish as true a bank check to a particular supermarket with intent to defraud.
There was competent substantial evidence to convict defendant Heath of the first count as charged in each information. In the direct testimony of Barbara Lutz, she stated that on May 19, 1967, Heath and another person entered the motel room where she was staying and handed her 48 checks. Defendant Heath then proceeded to instruct her how to sign a forged name upon the face of these checks. She stated that she followed the instructions given her and signed the 48 checks, placed them in a drawer and went to sleep. Her testimony further reveals that she never saw the checks again and did not know what happened to them after she went to sleep.
As to Count II, appellant Heath contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the jury verdict and judgment of conviction for the crime of uttering and publishing a forged instrument with intent to defraud, and that the trial court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict at the clase of the State’s case. We agree and reverse as to each Count II in all four in-formations.
We have been unable to discern from this record any evidence which would sustain Count II in any of the four informations. There is nothing in the record to connect Heath with the uttering and publishing of any of the forged bank checks in question to any of the supermarkets set out in the informations with intent to defraud.
Competent evidence must be adduced as to each element of an alleged criminal offense. Hill v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 209 So.2d 689, 690. Such was not done in this cause, so the judgments of conviction as to Count II of each information are reversed for further proceedings but affirmed as to Count I of each information.
It is so ordered.
LILES, C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Telfare v. State, 529 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…date to conspire to possess and distribute heroin or to facilitate the substantive offense of distributing heroin. The prosecution must prove every essential element of the crime charged. Purifoy v. State, 359 So. 2d 446 (Fla.1978); Heath v. State, 220 So. 2d 436 (Fla.2d DCA 1969). The question we must answer is whether the state has proved every essential element of the RICO statute. Stated another way, is proof of one, but not all, of the crimes alleged in one of the incident acts sufficient to sustain a R…
Authorities Cited
- Hill v. State, 209 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)