SAVANNAH WALDO, 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 grand larceny, holding that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. The court found no error in the trial proceedings.
Yes, the evidence presented was sufficient to sustain the conviction for grand larceny.
“The remaining three question the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction, the defendant admitting in her brief that “the single question presented is was there sufficient evidence adduced to convict the defendant of the crime?””
This quote establishes the central issue on appeal regarding the sufficiency of the evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSavannah Waldo was charged with grand larceny and convicted by a jury. She was sentenced to six months in jail. Waldo appealed the conviction, arguing…
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 Grand Larceny cases and more on FLexlaw
Shackleford, J.
An information was filed in the Criminal Court of Record for Hillsborough County against Savannah Waldo, wherein she was charged with having committed the crime of grand larceny. A trial was had before a jury, which resulted in her conviction and she was sentenced to confinement in the county jail at hard labor for a period of six months. She seeks a reversal of this judgment by writ of error. Four errors are assigned, but the second is expressly abandoned. The remaining three question the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction, the defendant admitting in her brief that “the single question presented is was there sufficient evidence adduced to convict the defendant of the crime?” The jury answered this question in the affirmative, as likewise did the trial judge in refusing 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Buchanan v. State, 95 Fla. 301 (Fla. 1928)…there” and such other indefinite descriptions, confirmed the deduction. This is true because the burden is upon the plaintiff in error to make the error, if any, clearly to appear. See Tatum v. State, 49 Fla. 67, 38 South. Rep. 601; Waldo v. State, 58 Fla. 133, 50 South. Rep. 487; Houston v. State, 50 Fla. 90, 39 South. Rep. 468; McRae v. State, 62 Fla. 74, 57 South. Rep. 348. These circumstances justify the conclusion at which the jury arrived that the assault by the defendant was unlawful. There is amp…
Authorities Cited
- Chancey v. State, 54 Fla. 20 (Fla. 1907)