DAVID FLOYD, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed a conviction for breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor and petty larceny, finding sufficient evidence despite contradictory testimony.
Yes, the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict and judgment. The court found ample positive evidence to support the jury's findings.
“The evidence has been examined and while it is contradictory in the extreme, there is ample positive evidence to support the verdict and it is not made to appear that the jury were influenced by considerations outside the evidence.”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for upholding the jury's verdict despite conflicting evidence.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavid Floyd was convicted of breaking and entering a building with intent to commit a misdemeanor and petty larceny. He received a three-year sentence…
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 Contradictory Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Floyd was tried and convicted for breaking and entering a building with intent' to commit a misdemeanor and petty larceny. He was sentenced to a term of three years in the state penitentiary and seeks reversal on writ of error.
*1369The sole question relied on for reversal is the. sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict and judgment. The evidence has been examined and while it is contradictory in the extreme, there is ample positive evidence to support the verdict and it is not made to appear that the jury were influenced by considerations outside the evidence. The facts do not bring this case within the rule announced in Troop v. State, 98 Fla. 385, 123 So. R. 811, 813 or Fuller v. State, 92 Fla. 873, 110 So. R. 528.
Affirmed.
Terrell, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Strum, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Fuller v. State, 92 Fla. 873 (Fla. 1926)
- Troop v. State, 98 Fla. 385 (Fla. 1929)