ODIE MCNEIL, 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.
Odie McNeil was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment based primarily on eyewitness identification testimony. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that the identification evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly where the same witness's identification of a co-defendant was rejected by the jury.
The conviction must be reversed because the identification evidence was not substantial in character and was insufficient to establish McNeil's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Where evidence of identity is not satisfactory to the appellate court, a new trial must be granted, especially in cases involving life imprisonment sentences.
“Human liberty should not be forfeited by a conviction under evidence which is not sufficient to convince a fair and impartial mind of the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Establishes the core principle that convictions must rest on evidence meeting the reasonable doubt standard, especially in life imprisonment cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobert Reese, P. Baldwin, and Odie McNeil were jointly charged with armed robbery under Florida law. At trial, Robert Reese and Odie McNeil were found…
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 Identification Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
—Robert Reese, P. Baldwin and Odie McNeil were jointly informed against in the Criminal Court of Record of Dade County for the offense of armed robbery, as denounced and punished by Chapter 13793, Acts of 1929, Laws of Florida, Section 7157 C. G. L., 5055 R. G. S., as amended.
Robert Reese and Odie McNeil were found guilty while P. Baldwin was acquitted. From a sentence to life imprisonment imposed on him by the Court, Odie McNeil, *361one of the convicted defendants, took writ of error to this Court.
The judgment against Odie McNeil must be reversed on the authority of Nims v. State, 70 Sou. Rep. 565; Platt v. State, 65 Fla. 253, 61 Sou. Rep. 502; Newborn v. State, 73 Fla. 1064, 75 Sou. Rep. 581; Heath v. State, 97 Fla. 330, 120 Sou. Rep. 846; Parrish v. State, 98 Fla. 877, 124 Sou. Rep. 445.
Human liberty should not be forfeited by a conviction under evidence which is not sufficient to convince a fair and impartial mind of the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. This is especially true in a case where life imprisonment is the penalty imposed. Heath v. State, supra. And where the evidence of identity of the accused as being the guilty party is not satisfactory to the appellate court, a new trial will be granted. Nims v. State, supra.
In this case the sole testimony identifying the defendant McNeil as a participant in the robbery was given by the witness Eahming, whose identification of the defendant P. Baldwin, which was of equal force, was rejected by the jury which found Baldwin not guilty on the same identification on which it convicted McNeil.
While the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses is ordinarily a matter which is exclusively within the province of the jury to decide, and this court will as a rule not reverse a judgment based upon a verdict returned by the jury and approved by the trial judge, when there is substantial evidence to support the verdict rendered, it is also the rule that the evidence relied on to have this effect must be substantial in character.
When such evidence is not substantial in character, this court is committed to the rule that a conviction will be reversed and a new trial ordered, where the evidence *362relied on is not satisfactory to establish the identity of an accused as a participant in a crime of which he has been found guilty. Platt v. State, supra.
Reversed for a new trial.
Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur.
Buford, C.J., and Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Delbert Lee Tibbs v. State, 397 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 1981)…. Although this language is imprecise, a careful reading of the opinion seems to indicate that reversal was based on the state’s failure to place the defendants at the scene of the crime or to prove that they fired the fatal shots. McNeil v. State, 104 Fla. 360, 139 So. 791 (1932), and Woodward v. State, 113 Fla. 301, 151 So. 509 (1933), are similar to Williams. In McNeil this Court reversed because “the evidence of identity of the accused as being the guilty party [was] not satisfactory to the appellate c…
-
Clark v. State, 379 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1979)…lusive province of the jury to decide, and we will not reverse a judgment based upon a verdict returned by a jury when there is competent evidence which is also substantial in character to support the jury’s verdict. Tibbs v. State; McNeil v. State, 104 Fla. 360, 139 So. 791 (1932). There are no discrepancies in the essential facts of Johnston’s testimony. There is no question as to the identification of Clark or the fact that Clark’s Blazer was identified as being in the bank’s parking lot at the precise…
-
Delbert Tibbs v. State, 337 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 1976)…mmitted to the rule that a conviction will be reversed and a new trial ordered, where the evidence relied on is not satisfactory to establish the identity of an accused as a participant in a crime of which he has been found guilty.” McNeil v. State, 104 Fla. 360, 139 So. 791, 792 (1932). Rather than risk the very real possibility that Tibbs had nothing to do with these crimes, we reverse his conviction and remand for a new trial. SUNDBERG and HATCHETT, JJ., concur. BOYD, J., concurs specially with an opi…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Nims v. State, 70 Fla. 530 (Fla. 1915)
- James Parish v. State, 98 Fla. 877 (Fla. 1929)
- Platt v. State, 65 Fla. 253 (Fla. 1913)
- Heath v. State, 97 Fla. 330 (Fla. 1929)
- Newborn v. State, 73 Fla. 1064 (Fla. 1917)