State v. Hancock, (1941)
Court: Supreme Court of Florida
Number:
Visitors: 8
Judges: TERRELL, J.
Attorneys: J. Tom Watson, Attorney General, Nathan Cockrell, Assistant Attorney General, and O.C. Parker, for Appellant;
B.K. Roberts and Weldon G. Starry, for Appellee.
Filed: Apr. 19, 1941
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Appellee was informed against in Leon *Page 694 County on a charge of embezzlement. This appeal was prosecuted under the Criminal Code, Chapter 19554, Acts of 1939, from an order of the circuit court quashing the information. The question raised on the motion to quash and brought here for determination is whether or not appellee was immunized from prosecution for any crime under Section 8311, Compiled General Laws of 1927, by reason of the fact that he was required to give testimony in a proceed
Summary: Appellee was informed against in Leon *Page 694 County on a charge of embezzlement. This appeal was prosecuted under the Criminal Code, Chapter 19554, Acts of 1939, from an order of the circuit court quashing the information. The question raised on the motion to quash and brought here for determination is whether or not appellee was immunized from prosecution for any crime under Section 8311, Compiled General Laws of 1927, by reason of the fact that he was required to give testimony in a proceedi..
More
It appears that after Hancock had been summoned to appear before the State Attorney, and had done so, and had testified at length, he was later on informed against for both larceny and embezzlement. Some time later, the charge of larceny was dropped. The servant and custodian of the personal property or funds of another, who appropriates or converts them to his own use, may be guilty of both larceny and embezzlement, and may be prosecuted for either offense. See Fitch v. State, 135 Fla. 361, 185 So. 435, 125 A. L. R. 360.
Source: CourtListener
