ANDREW J. CHANCEY, 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 manslaughter, holding that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the jury's verdict.
Yes, the evidence was amply sufficient to support the verdict.
“We have given the evidence our careful consideration and are of .the opinion that it is amply sufficient to support the verdict.”
The court's conclusion regarding the sufficiency of the evidence.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAndrew J. Chancey was indicted for murder, tried, and convicted of manslaughter. He was sentenced to five years in state prison. Chancey appealed the …
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 Murder cases and more on FLexlaw
Shackleford, C. J.
— Andrew J. Chancey, tile plaintiff in error, was indicted for murder at the spring term of the circuit court for Lee county, tried at the same term, convicted' of manslaughter and sentenced to a term of five years in the state prison. He seeks reversal of the judgment and sentence here by writ of error. Several errors are assigned, but all of them have been abandoned here except the single proposition as to the sufficiency of the evidence.
We have given the evidence our careful consideration and are of .the opinion that it is amply sufficient to support the verdict. We find nothing which would warrant or justify us in setting the verdict aside, therefore the judgment must be affirmed, and it is so ordered, at the cost of the county of Lee. See Smith v. State, 49 Fla. 33, 38 South. Rep. 599, and Tatum v. State, 49 Fla. 67, 38 South. Rep. 601.
Cockrell and Whitfield, JJ., concur. Taylor, Hocicer and Parkhill, JJ., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gillyard v. State, 65 Fla. 322 (Fla. 1913)…^ which question the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. A careful reading of the evidence convinces us that the jurors, acting as reasonable men, not only could but should have found the verdict which they did. See Chancey v. State, 54 Fla. 20, 44 South. Rep. 1013, and Bexley v. State, '59 Fla. 6, 51 South. Rep. 278, and authorities there cited. Judgment affirmed. Taylor, Cockrell and Whitfield, J. J., concur. • Hocker, J., absent, concurred in the opinion as prepared.…
-
Savannah Waldo v. State, 58 Fla. 133 (Fla. 1909)…to grant the motion for a new trial. After a careful consideration of all the evidence, we are of the same opinion. No useful purpose could be served by setting it forth. Nothing remains for us to do but to affirm the judgment. See Chancey v. State, 54 Fla. 20, 44 South. Rep. 1013, and authorities there cited. Affirmed. Whitfield, O. J., and Cockrell, J., concur. Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill, JJ., concur in the opinion.…
Authorities Cited
- Will Tatum v. State, 49 Fla. 67 (Fla. 1905)
- Remington Smith v. State, 49 Fla. 33 (Fla. 1905)