IRVAN STEWART
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Irvan Stewart was convicted of murder in the second degree for the 1945 killing of Earnest Reynolds and sentenced to twenty years in prison. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, rejecting claims that the evidence was insufficient and that the trial court erred in its jury instructions.
The evidence was legally sufficient to support the jury's verdict, and the trial court's jury instructions were reasonably free from error. The trial court did not reversibly err by declining to instruct on the deceased's reputation for fighting because no such requested charge was shown to have been made and refused.
“the jury settled all the disputes and conflicts and this Court is not justified in substituting its judgment on the evidence for that of the jury”
Establishes the appellate standard of review—the court will not second-guess the jury's factual determinations on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStewart was indicted for first-degree murder in the killing of Earnest Reynolds on March 29, 1945. A Polk County jury convicted him of murder in the s…
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 Second Degree Murder cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, Irvan Stewart, was indicted for the crime of murder in the first degree by a Polk County grand jury for the unlawful killing of Earnest Reynolds on the 29th day of March, 1945. He was arraigned, placed upon trial, and by a jury of Polk County convicted of murder in the second degree and by the trial court sentenced to imprisonment in the State Prison at hard labor for a period of twenty years. He has perfected an appeal here.
Counsel for appellant pose for adjudication several questions which arose during the progress of the trial in the court below. In his brief and in oral argument the contention is made that the evidence adduced is legally insufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment of the lower court. We have studied and carefully analyzed the testimony appearing in the transcript and have come to the conclusion that the jury settled all the disputes and conflicts and this Court is not justified in substituting its judgment on the evidence for that of the jury. We do not think it necessary to set out the testimony as given by the many witnesses offered by the State and the defendant.
We have studied the entire instructions or charges of the trial court upon the law of the case as given to the jury. It does appear that in considering the instructions as given in their entirety, they appear to be reasonably free from error, although it is here contended that certain requested charges refused by the trial court constitute reversible error. We cannot agree to this contention. Emphasis here is placed on the failure of the trial court to instruct the jury on the law of a bad reputation which the testimony discloses that the deceased Reynolds had for fighting, etc. The answer to this contention is that the record shows several requested charges by the appellant as refused by the trial court, but no requested charges on this point appear in the record as having been requested by counsel and refused by the trial court.
It is our conclusion that the record is free from error and the judgment of the lower court is hereby affirmed.
TERRELL, BUFORD, ADAMS, THOMAS, JJ., and BARNS, Circuit Judge, concur.
BROWN, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 109 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)…did he request the giving of any instruction, or object to the failure to give an instruction. He cannot now raise any question on these matters, as he is precluded from doing so by Sec. 918.10(4), Florida Statutes, F.S.A. See also Stewart v. State, 158 Fla. 121, 27 So. 2d 752, and Febre v. State, 158 Fla. 853, 30 So. 2d 367. No reversible error having been made to appear, the judgment appealed from is affirmed. KANNER, C. J., and SHANNON, J., •concur.…