JOHN DREW, 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 larceny conviction, holding that conflicting evidence, if believed by the jury, is sufficient to sustain a conviction. The court deferred to the jury's role as the sole judge of evidence weight and witness credibility.
Yes, the jury's verdict was supported by sufficient evidence. If the jury believed the evidence presented by the State, it was adequate to sustain the conviction.
“though it is conflicting in some respects, yet if that part of it introduced by the State was believed by the jury, it was sufficient to sustain the conviction had upon it.”
Establishes the standard for reviewing conflicting evidence in a jury verdict.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohn Drew was indicted, tried, and convicted of larceny in the Circuit Court of Clay County. He was sentenced to two years in the penitentiary. The so…
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 Jury'S Role In Weighing Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Taylor, C. J.:
The plaintiff in error was indicted, tried and convicted in the Circuit Court, of Clay county for the •crime of larceny and sentenced to a term of two years in the penitentiary, and seeks a reversal on writ of •error. No errors are assigned or argued except that the verdict was not supported by the evidence adduced. "Without encumbering our reports with a useless rehearsal of the evidence, we find that though it is conflicting in some respects, yet if that part of it introduced by the State was believed by the jury, it was sufficient to sustain the conviction had upon it.
The jury being the sole judges of the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses, we can not, under the circumstances, reverse their finding, and the judgment of the court below is, therefore, hereby affirmed.