WALTER LOGAN, HENRY BROWN, GEORGE HARRIS, BABY TOULE AND MARTIN REGGINS, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a manslaughter conviction, holding that the trial court did not err in excluding evidence and that the jury's verdict was supported by sufficient evidence, even if conflicting.
No, the trial court did not err in excluding the evidence, and the jury's verdict is legally supported by the evidence presented.
“The relevancy of the excluded question is not made to appear.”
Reasoning for excluding defense witness testimony.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs in error were indicted for murder and convicted of manslaughter. They appealed, arguing the verdict was unsupported by evidence and that ce…
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 Appellate Review Of Jury Verdicts cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, C. J.
The plaintiffs in error were indicted in the circuit court for Duval County for murder and convicted of manslaughter. On writ of error it is contended that the verdict is not supported by the evidence and that error was committed in excluding certain evidence.
At the trial, a witness for the defense was asked if on the day of and before the ho'micide he did not advise one of the defendants, Martin Reggins, to go to the deputy sheriff and have the deceased arrested for shooting. The court excluded the question from the jury. No error is made to appear here. Martin Reggins had already testified in his own behalf and it was not then in evidence that Reggins had asked the deputy sheriff to arrest the deceased for shooting off fire arms some time before the alleged homicide. The relevancy of the excluded question is not made to appear. The evidence in the case is conflicting and not altogether satisfactory, but there is testimony upon which the verdict could be legally predicated, and the verdict found has been approved by the trial judge in denying a motion for new trial. Under these circumstances the appellate court will not disturb the verdict. No substantial errors are made to appear and the judgment is affirmed.
Shackleford and Cockrell, JJ., concur. Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill, JJ., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Parrish v. State, 90 Fla. 25 (Fla. 1925)…at the jury was influenced by considerations other than the evidence. Under such circumstances, this court will not disturb a verdict of guilty, which has been ap [*35] proved by the trial court in denying the motion for a new trial. Logan v. State, 58 Fla. 72, 50 South. Rep. 536; Caldwell v. State, 62 Fla. 18, 56 South. Rep. 497; Boyington v. State, 77 Fla. 602, 81 South. Rep. 890; Thompson v. State, 58 Fla. 106, 50 South. Rep. 507. Judgment affirmed. West, C. J., and Whitfield and Terrell, J. J., conc…
-
Robinson v. State, 69 Fla. 521 (Fla. 1915)…te, 56 Fla. 1, 48 South. Rep. 219; Barnhill v. State, 56 Fla. 16, 48 South. Rep. 251; Kent v. State, 53 Fla. 51, 43 South. Rep. 773; Lindsey v. State, 53 Fla. 56, 43 South. Rep. 87; Williams v. State, 45 Fla. 128, 34 South. Rep. 279; Logan v. State, 58 Fla. 72, 50 South. Rep. 536. The fifth, sixth and seventh grounds of the motion attack certain charges of the court numbered three, five and twelve. The assignment of error, however, so far as it involves the last numbered charge, is abandoned. The third…
-
Green v. State, 93 Fla. 1076 (Fla. 1927)…ry well have conscientiously arrived at any other conclusion than that the defendant was guilty of murder in the first degree. The recommendation to.mercy was the jury’s privilege. See McNish v. State, 47 Fla. 66, 36 South. Rep. 175; Logan v. State, 58 Fla. 72, 50 South. Rep. 536; Adams v. State, 56 Fla. 1, 48 South. Rep. 219; McDonald v. State, 56 Fla. 74, 47 South. Rep. 485; Williams v. State, 45 Fla. 128, 34 South. Rep. 279; Barker v. State, 74 Fla. 95, 76 South. Rep. 676. It is contended that the evi…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence