MACK MAGILL, 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 robbery conviction, holding that appellate courts cannot overturn jury verdicts based on conflicting evidence, as such matters are solely within the jury's province.
Yes, the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction. The appellate court's role is not to re-evaluate conflicting testimony, but to determine if the State's evidence, if believed, supports the verdict.
“The sole question presented is whether or not the evidence will support the conviction; and after an examination of the record we are clearly of the opinion that the judgment can not be set aside on the objection made.”
Identifies the sole issue on appeal and the court's initial finding.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff in error was convicted of robbery based on an information under a specific statute. The State presented testimony that clearly establish…
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
Mabry, J.:
Plaintiff in error was convicted in the Criminal Court of Record for Duval county of robbery,' on an information under section 2398 Revised Statutes, reading as follows, vis: “Whoever by force, violence or assault, or putting in fear, feloniously robs, steals and takes from the person of another money or other property, which may be the subject of larceny, (such robber not being armed with a dangerous weapon) shall be punished by imprisonment in the State prison not exceeding fifteen years.” No question was raised .in the trial court, or insisted on here as to the sufficiency of the information, the admissibility of evidence or the correctness of the instructions given by the court to the jury. The sole question presented is whether or not the evidence will support the conviction; and after an examination of the record we are clearly of the opinion that the judgment can not be set aside on the objection made.
The testimony offered by the State clearly established the robbery and identified the accused' as the guilty party. The defendant denied the charge and proved by two companions facts which, if true, would tend to' establish an alibi. W|here the testimony for the State, if true, establishes the offence against an accused beyond a reasonable doubt, it is not the province of the appellate court to set aside a verdict thereon because of conflicts produced by the testimony in favor of the defence. Such matters are setttled exclusively by the jury.
The judgment must be affirmed, and an order will so be made.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McNish v. State, 47 Fla. 69 (Fla. 1904)…the evidence; and that a verdict will not be set aside by such court where its propriety depends entirely upon the credibility of conflicting witnesses.” [*75] Also see the numerous authorities there cited, and, in addition thereto, Magill v. State, 42 Fla. 197, 28 South. Rep. 56; Doyle v. State, 39 Fla. 155, 22 South. Rep. 272; Kelly v. State, 39 Fla. 122, 22 South. Rep. 303; Teal v. State, 43 Fla. 580, 31 South. Rep. 282; Mitchell v. State, 45 Fla. 76, 33 South. Rep. 1009. In fact, as was said as far bac…