LAND
v.
STATE
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 larceny conviction, holding that the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice is sufficient to sustain a conviction, especially when the jury was properly instructed and chose to believe the accomplice's testimony.
Yes, the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice is legally sufficient to sustain a conviction in Florida.
[1] The uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice is sufficient to sustain a conviction when the jury credits the accomplice's account and proper jury instructions on the wei…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“It is well settled in this state that the testimony of an accomplice, even though uncorroborated, is sufficient to sustain a conviction.”
Establishes the legal principle that uncorroborated accomplice testimony is sufficient for conviction.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was convicted of larceny of three juniper logs valued under $100. The primary evidence against him was the testimony of an accomplice, J…
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 Accomplice Testimony Sufficiency cases and more on FLexlaw
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and William A. O'Bryan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee. ROBERTS, Justice.
This is an appeal from a conviction of larceny of three juniper logs of a value less than $100, in which the sole question presented is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction.
The appellant's part in the taking and carrying away of the logs was fully related at the trial by one Jim Andrews, an accomplice. It is well settled in this state that the testimony of an accomplice, even though uncorroborated, is sufficient to sustain a conviction. Bacon v. State, 22 Fla. 51; Jenkins v. State, 31 Fla. 196, 12 So. 677; Caldwell & Larkins v. State, 50 Fla. 4, 39 So. 188; Samuels v. State, 123 Fla. 280, 166 So. 743; Varnum v. State, 137 Fla. 438, 188 So. 346. The jury was given full and clear instructions as to the weight to be given an accomplice's testimony and the caution with which it should be received. Moreover, there was other evidence tending to corroborate the testimony of Jim Andrews. The jury chose to believe the testimony of Jim Andrews and the other State's witnesses, rather than the appellant's version of the affair, and we are not authorized to substitute our judgment for that of the jury on the question of the credibility of witnesses.
For the reasons stated, the judgment appealed from should be and it is hereby Affirmed.
SEBRING, C.J., and TERRELL and MATHEWS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jalbert v. State, 95 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 1957)…sation of the alleged accomplice and an explanation of his possession of the property. It is well settled in this State that the testimony of an accomplice, even though uncorroborated, is sufficient to sustain a conviction. Land v. State, Fla.1952, 59 So. 2d 370. This Court will presume the trial judge properly considered the accomplice’s testimony with due caution, since the trial judge is presumed to have committed no error and that presumption has not been overcome by the defendant. It is also the rule…
-
Bass v. State, 172 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)…verdict. This Court, sitting as a reviewing tribunal, cannot substitute its judgment for that of the Jury as to the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence. Martin et al. v. State, 134 Fla. 174, 183 So. 634; Land v. State, Fla., 59 So. 2d 370. The appellant, in both cases, argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict of the Jury. For the reasons stated above, we find this contention to be without merit. The Appellant further argues that the Information charging him…
-
Anderson v. State, 241 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 1970)…nviction upon the evidence of an accomplice alone. The law is well settled that the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice is sufficient to support a conviction if it satisfies a jury of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Land v. State, 59 So. 2d 370 (Fla.1952). See 6 F.L.P., Criminal Law, § 445. Immediately following the alleged offense the victim was found to have a high count of highly mobile sperm in her vaginal canal. The defendant was identified by the two accomplices who testified defend…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Edmond P. Bacon v. State, 22 Fla. 51 (Fla. 1886)
- Caldwell v. State, 50 Fla. 4 (Fla. 1905)
- Samuels v. State, 123 Fla. 280 (Fla. 1936)
- Varum v. State, 137 Fla. 438 (Fla. 1939)
- Jenkins v. State, 31 Fla. 196 (Fla. 1893)
- Land v. State, 59 So.2d 370 (Fla. 1952)