SAM JACKSON, JR., MAJOR YOUNG AND EUGENE HOGANS, PLAINTIFFS 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.
Three defendants were convicted of breaking and entering a smokehouse with intent to commit felony theft of bacon. On appeal, they challenged the sufficiency of evidence, but the Florida Supreme Court affirmed their convictions, finding sufficient evidence of guilt based on possession of recently stolen property and their implausible explanations.
The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the jury properly determined the sufficiency of evidence. Jackson and Young's possession of the recently stolen bacon, combined with their uncredible and conflicting explanations, provided sufficient evidence of guilt. The jury, observing witness demeanor and credibility, properly rejected their claim of purchasing the meat from Joe Jones.
“It was a question for the jury to determine whether the defendants Jackson and Young gave á reasonable and creditable explanation of how they came into possession of the recently stolen property.”
Establishes that credibility and reasonableness of explanations for possession of stolen property are jury questions, and the jury's determination is binding on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSam Jackson, Jr., Major Young, and Eugene Hogans were indicted along with Joe Jones for breaking and entering J.C. Marcum's smokehouse with intent to …
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 Breaking And Entering With Intent To Commit A Misdemeanor cases and more on FLexlaw
Hocker, J.
At the Fall term, 1903, of the Circuit Court of Columbia county the plaintiff’s-in error Sam Jackson, Jr., Major Young and Eugene Hogans, along with one Joe' Jones were indicted for unlawfully and feloniously breaking and entering a building, to-wit: a smoke house, the property of one J.
C. Marcum, with intent to commit a felony, i. e. to take, steal and carry away several hundred pounds of bacon, of the property of said Marcum. At the Spring term, 1904, of said court, the plaintiffs in error were tried/Joé’Jones not having been arrested. The plaintiffs in error were convicted of breaking, and entering with, intent-to commit a misdemeanor, and were sentenced to..serve terms in the Penitenitary. These Judgments and .sentences they severally seek to reverse on; writ - of.error. The. only assignments' of error argued here are those which question the sufficiency of the evidence :tp sustain thé.-'verdict. We -,have carefully ex-aminedjthe evidence as bearing upon the. guilt, of each of the defendants: . •. . (
• The breaking and entering-and stealing of a quantity of bacon belonging to Marcum is not disputed. -If is insisted, however, that there is not sufficient evidence to connect Sam Jackson, Jr., and Major Young with the crime. We do not think there is the slightest doubt that the bacon found in the possession of these parties soon after the commission of the crime was the bacon of Marcum. Taking these defendants, own story in this connection and they both claim to have bought it from Joe Jones who came to their houses late at night, in a buggy wth Eugene Hogan, and waked them up and sold them the meat. Eugene Hogan admitted to the State witnesses that he and others broke into Marcum’s smoke house and took away this meat. He further stated that Sam Jackson, Jr., and Major Young were in the party which committed this offense, but the Circuit Judge charged the jury correctly that this evidence was not competent against Sam Jackson, Jr., and Major Young, they not being present when the statement was made. Marcum also testified that the bacon found in their possession was his. It was a question for the jury to determine.whether the defendants Jackson and Young gave á reasonable and creditable explanation of how they came into possession of the recently stolen property. Roberson v. State, 40 Fla. 509, 24 South. Rep.
474. This depended upon the credibility of the witnesses, a question for the determination of the jury who had the witnesses before them, saw their demeanor and heard them testify. Jackson and Young made several conflicting statements in regard to the matter. We discover no condition of the evidence as set forth in the record which would justify the notion that the jury were governed by improper influences in arriving at their, verdict. Browning v. State, 41 Fla. 271, 26 South. Rep. 639, and cases cited.
There are several other assignments of error which though not argued, are insisted upon in the brief. We have read the record carefully in connection with-these assignments of error, and do not discover any glaring error prejudicial to the plaintiffs in error under any of these assignments. Under the - rule laid in Thomas v. State, 36 Fla. 109, 18 South. Rep. 331, and re-affirmed in numerous other cases this court is not required to make a further or more critical investigation. Williams v. State, 45 Fla. 128, 34 South. Rep. 279; Hoodless v. Jernigan, 46 Fla. 213, 35 South. Rep. 656; McNish v. State, 45 Fla. 83, 36 South. Rep. 176; Schley v. State, 48 Fla. ..., 37 South. Rep. 518; Markey v. State, 47 Fla. ..., 37 South. Rep. 53.
The judgments and sentences of the Circuit Court are affirmed.
Taylor and Cockrell, JJ., concur. Whitfield, C. J., and Carter and Shackleford, JJ., conctir in'-the'opinion/ ''
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pittman v. State, 51 Fla. 94 (Fla. 1906)…as practically abandoned because not argued. See Hoodless v. Jernigan, 46 Fla. 213, 35 South. Rep. 656, and authorities there cited; Thomas v. State, 47 Fla. 99, 36 South. Rep. 161; Schley v. State, 48 Fla. 53, 37 South. Rep. 518; Jackson v. State, 49 Fla. 3, 38 South. Rep. 599. However, we turn to the bill of exceptions and find that the paper in question was a receipt given by the defendant to the Yirginia-Carolina Chemical Company for certain notes and accounts, therein described, which were entrust…
-
Park Tucker v. State, 86 Fla. 36 (Fla. 1923)…ept this explanation as .true, or as sufficient to raise in the minds of the jury a reason [*40] able doubt of defendants’ guilt. The evidence is sufficient to support the verdict. McDonald v. State, 56 Fla. 74, 47 South. Rep. 485; Jackson v. State, 49 Fla. 3, 38 South. Rep. 599. There was therefore no error in denying the motion of plaintiff in error for a new trial. This disposes of all the assignments of error. The judgment is affirmed. Taylor, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Browne and Terrell, J. J.…
-
Bart McCall v. State, 55 Fla. 108 (Fla. 1908)…patent as to require no argument to demonstrate it. This we have done and have discovered no error. See Thomas v. State, 47 Fla. 99, 36 South. Rep. 161, and authorities there cited; Schley v. State, 48 Fla. 53, 37 South. Rep. 518; Jackson v. State, 49 Fla. 3, 38 South. Rep. 599. Several of the other assignments must fall for the like reason. The tenth assignment is based upon the refusal of the following instruction: “The court charges the jury, that if any one of the jury have a reasonable doubt growi…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hoodless v. Jernigan, 46 Fla. 213 (Fla. 1903)
- Roberson v. State, 40 Fla. 509 (Fla. 1898)
- Williams v. State, 45 Fla. 128 (Fla. 1903)
- Thomas v. State, 36 Fla. 109 (Fla. 1895)
- McNish v. State, 45 Fla. 83 (Fla. 1903)
- Browning v. State, 41 Fla. 271 (Fla. 1899)