Leggett v. State, 237 So. 3d 1144

In July 2016 Jones contracted Leggett, a carpenter, to remodel her kitchen and gave him a $2,250 deposit (50%) to buy materials.
The contract called for completion in two weeks; Leggett delayed, stopped returning calls, and Jones later hired another carpenter to finish the work.
The State charged Leggett with third-degree grand theft and unlicensed contracting; Leggett was acquitted of the licensing charge but convicted of grand theft and sentenced to 60 months.
At trial the State relied on Jones’s testimony that her bank called to tell her the deposit check was cashed the day she gave it to Leggett; Jones had no personal knowledge that Leggett endorsed or cashed the check.
The State introduced a copy of the check with the purported endorsement redacted and offered no bank records, bank witness, or handwriting expert to authenticate endorsement or who cashed the check.
The appellate court found the State presented only inadmissible hearsay and insufficient circumstantial evidence of felonious intent, concluding the facts were consistent with a civil breach of contract, not theft.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence proved felonious intent required for grand theft	Jones’s testimony that the check was cashed the same day indicated Leggett intended to deprive her of the money	Leggett lacked felonious intent; the transaction was a contractual deposit and failure to finish is a civil breach	Reversed: evidence insufficient to prove felonious intent; judgment of acquittal should have been granted
Admissibility of victim’s testimony about bank call	Testimony about bank call was admissible as non-hearsay or exception	Testimony was hearsay lacking foundation and authentication	Court held the testimony was inadmissible hearsay as to who cashed the check
Sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to exclude reasonable innocence hypothesis	Circumstantial facts (deposit taken, work not done) established guilt	Circumstantial evidence did not exclude innocent hypothesis (failed contract)	Court held State failed to exclude reasonable hypothesis of innocence; acquittal required
Whether restitution and costs should stand after reversal	State implicitly argued conviction supports restitution/costs	Leggett argued conviction and related orders must be vacated after reversal	Court ordered conviction, restitution, and costs vacated and directed dismissal

Pagan v. State, 830 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 2002) (standard of review for judgment of acquittal)
Segal v. State, 98 So. 3d 739 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (intent must exist at time of taking; failure to perform can be civil)
Stramaglia v. State, 603 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (promise to perform may be basis of theft only if intent existed at taking)
Jones v. State, 192 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966) (intent inferred from circumstances)
McNarrin v. State, 876 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (circumstantial evidence must exclude reasonable hypothesis of innocence)
Jeffries v. State, 797 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 2001) (circumstantial-evidence standard)
Armstrong v. State, 42 So. 3d 315 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (unauthenticated bank documents inadmissible)
Thompson v. State, 705 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (hearsay cannot substitute for unadmitted business records)
Martin v. State, 379 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) (voluntary payment under contract and failure to perform is not theft)
Gellman v. State, 371 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (trier of fact must have substantial competent evidence to infer felonious intent)