JOHN LESLIE, ALIAS, ETC., PLAINTIFF IN ERROR
v.
THE 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 grand larceny, finding that all issues raised on appeal had been previously decided in a related case against the same defendant. The court found the evidence sufficient to support the jury's verdict.
The court held that the judgment of conviction should be affirmed. The court found that all issues raised in this appeal were previously addressed and decided in a prior case involving the same defendant and that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict.
“All of the questions raised by the assignments of error in this case were fully passed upon in that case, and what is there said is fully decisive 'of this case.”
This quote establishes the primary basis for the court's decision, referencing a prior, related case.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff in error was indicted, tried, and convicted in the Circuit Court of St. Johns County for larceny of a diamond and pearl pin valued over …
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.
Taylor, J.:
The plaintiff in error was indicted, tried and convicted at the Fall term, 1894, of the Circuit Court of St. Johns county of the crime of larceny of one diamond and pearl pin, exceeding one hundred dollars in value, of the property of one Annie Shepard, and sentenced to imprisonment in the State penitentiary for five years. This judgment he seeks to reverse on writ of error. Recently at the present term we have disposed of another case against the same defendant, wherein his conviction in the same court was sustained upon a charge of entering a building or office, the property of one L. Alexander, with intent to commit the misdemeanor therein of larceny of property of less than one hundred dollars in value. All of the questions raised by the assignments of error in this case were fully passed upon in that case, and what is there said is fully decisive 'of this case. The evidence adduced in the present case is ample to sustain the verdict found, and finding no error in the record, the judgment below is hereby affirmed.