WILLIAM A. BEXLEY AND TRUBY OSTEEN, 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.
William Bexley and Truby Osteen were convicted of manslaughter after being indicted for murder in the first degree. They appealed on multiple grounds, but the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury verdict.
The court held that there was sufficient evidence, if believed by the jury, to warrant and sustain the verdict of manslaughter. The court affirmed the judgment, finding no reversible error.
“there was sufficient evidence adduced, if believed, which the jury evidently did believe, to warrant and sustain the verdict”
The court's core holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the manslaughter conviction.
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 in the first degree and tried before a jury. The jury convicted them of manslaughter and sentenced them t…
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
Shackleford, J.
The plaintiffs in error were indicted for murder in the first degree, were tried before a jury, convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to confinement in the State prison for a term of nine years. Relief is sought here upon writ of error. Thirty-seven errors are assigned, but only the eighth, twenty-eighth, twenty-ninth, thirtieth and thirty-first assignments are urged before us, the other assignments being ábandoned. While we have given all the assignments argued our careful consideration, in our opinion, the only ones which merit discussion are those questioning the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict.
The evidence as’set forth in the bill of exceptions covers nearly three hundred typewritten pages, all of which we have carefully read and duly considered and weighed. Our conclusion is that there was sufficient evidence adduced, if believed, which the jury evidently did believe, to warrant and sustain the verdict. We are further of the opinion that the jurors as reasonable men might well have found such verdict from the evidence adduced. The trial judge concurred in it by refusing to grant the motion for a new trial. We are unable to find that the jurors were improperly influenced in any way by considerations outside the evidence. For these reasons we must follow the settled policy of this court and refuse to disturb the verdict or to reverse the judgment. See the reasoning in Williams v. State, 58 Fla. 138, 50 South. Rep.
749. We would also refer to McNish v. State, 47 Fla. 69, 36 South. Rep. 176, and cases there cited; Walker v. Lee, 51 Fla. 360, text 369, 40 South. Rep. 881, text 884; Pittman v. State, 51 Fla. 94, text 123, 41 South. Rep. 385, text 395, S. C. 8 L.
R. A. (N. S.) 509; Wilson v. Jernigan, 57 Fla. 277, 49 South. Rep.
44. It is true that the evidence is conflicting and in some respects is not as satisfactory as we would like to have it, but, as we have frequently said, that furnishes no sufficient reason for a reversal of the judgment. We see no useful purpose to be accomplished by setting forth the voluminous evidence or attempting to discuss it.
Finding no reversible error, the judgment is affirmed.
Cockrell and Hocker, J. J., concur. Whitfield, C. J., and Parkhill, J., dissent, as to the sufficiency of the evidence.
Taylor, J., absent on account of illness.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Will Blackwell and Robert Blackwell v. The State of Floirda, 79 Fla. 709 (Fla. 1920)…on of manslaughter and upon appeal to this court the admission of such testimony was assigned as error, but not passed upon as the record of the case (not in the opinion) shows that it was not argued and was considered as abandoned. Bexley v. State, 59 Fla. 6, 51 South. Rep. 278. “Because of the universal constitutional right of the accused to be confronted by the witnesses, it is absolutely necessary, in order that the testimony of a deceased or absent witness may be admissible at a subsequent trial ag…
-
Dixon v. State, 132 So. 684 (Fla. 1931)…ourt when there is evidence to support it and the trial court has concurred by denying a motion for new trial and where there is no showing that the jury must have been improperly influenced by considerations outside of the evidence. Bexley v. State,59 Fla. 6, 51 So. 278; Wallace v. State, 76 Fla. 175, 79 So. 634. Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.…
-
Taylor v. State, 139 Fla. 542 (Fla. 1939)…el for plaintiff in error contend that the evidence adduced was not sufficient to sustain the verdict of the jury, but that it is manifestly against the weight of the evidence and preponderates in favor of the defendant. The case of Bexley v. State, 59 Fla. 6, 51 So. 287, and Stanley v. Powers, 125 Fla. 322, 169 So. 861, are cited and have been duly considered by this Court. Our construction of the testimony is that there is substantial evidence in the record to sustain the verdict as found by the jury.…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- McNish v. State, 47 Fla. 69 (Fla. 1904)
- Pittman v. State, 51 Fla. 94 (Fla. 1906)
- Wilson v. Jernigan, 57 Fla. 277 (Fla. 1909)
- Turner Williams v. State, 58 Fla. 138 (Fla. 1909)
- Walker v. Patrick, 51 Fla. 360 (Fla. 1906)