FRANK GRAHAM, 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 reversed a conviction for selling liquor illegally, finding that the evidence presented did not support the charge of a sale or an attempted sale.
No, the evidence presented was insufficient to prove a sale or attempted sale of liquor, and therefore the conviction cannot stand.
“The evidence wholly fails to show a sale or an offer to sell liquor and the judgment must be reversed for this reason.”
This quote establishes the primary reason for the reversal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was convicted of selling liquor in a prohibited precinct. The evidence showed he had purchased liquor in another county for himself and …
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.
[*54] Whitfield, C. J.
The plaintiff in error was convicted in the Circuit Court for Citrus County of the crime of selling liquor in a precinct in which the sale of liquors is forbidden by law. A writ of error was taken; The evidence wholly fails to show a sale or an offer to sell liquor and the judgment must be reversed for this reason. It appears that the defendant had purchased in another county a number of packages of liquor for himself and for others who had requested him to buy for them, for which purchases receipts in the names of different persons were held by the defendant. While on his way to deliver the goods to their owners the defendant was' arrested. There is no evidence of a sale or of an attempted sale and the possession of numerous' packages of liquor was accounted for. The evidence wholly fails to support the verdict and the judgment of conviction thereon is reversed.
Shackleford and Cockrell, JJ., concur,
Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill, JJ., concur in the opinion.