JEREMIAH SMITH, 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 appellate court affirmed a conviction for second-degree murder, holding that there was substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict despite conflicting testimony. The court emphasized that appellate courts should not disturb a verdict if there is some evidence for all essential elements of the crime.
Yes, the appellate court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction. The court found substantial evidence supporting the jury's verdict, even with conflicting testimony, and affirmed the trial court's decision.
“An appellate court should not grant a new trial upon the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence'to sustain a verdict of guilty affirmed by the trial court if there is some substantial evidence of all the facts legally essential to support the verdict, and the whole evidence is such that the verdict may fairly have been found on it.”
This quote establishes the standard for appellate review of evidence sufficiency.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant, Jeremiah Smith, was indicted for first-degree murder but convicted of second-degree murder. He appealed, arguing that the evidence show…
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 Depraved Mind Regardless Of Human Life cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
Upon an indictment charging murder in the first degree Smith was convicted of murder in the second degree and took writ of error. The only assignment here is that the verdict is not sustained by the evidence, the contention being that the evidence shows an accidental homicide.
An appellate court should not grant a new trial upon the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence'to sustain a verdict of guilty affirmed by the trial court if there is some substantial evidence of all the facts legally essential to support the verdict, and the whole evidence is such that the verdict may fairly have been found on it. Where there is evidence from which all the elements of the crime may legally have been found or inferred, and it does not appear that the jury were not governed by the evidence, the verdict will not be disturbed by the appellate court on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence. A verdict will not be set aside by an appellate court where the propriety of the verdict depends not upon the lack of evidence, but upon the credibility or weight of conflicting competent testimony. McDonald v. State, 56 Fla. 74, 47 South. Rep. 485.
While there are conflicts in the testimony, there is substantial evidence tending to show that the fatal shot was fired by the defendant from a gun under circumstances that evinced a depraved mind regardless of human life, if not a premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed. As the jury have found a Verdict in accordance with this phase of the testimony, and as there is nothing to indicate that the jury were not governed by the evidence, the judgment should be affirmed, no errors of law or procedure appearing and the record disclosing no denial of any right of the defendant who was ably represented and given every opportunity to present his defense in an orderly fair trial.
The judgment is affirmed.
Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor and Hocker, J. J., concur. Cockrell. J., absent, concurred in the opinion when prepared.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Nims v. State, 70 Fla. 530 (Fla. 1915)…refusal of the trial court to grant a new trial on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict will not be disturbed by the appellate court.” Also see McDonald v. State, 56 Fla. 74, 47 South. Rep. 485, and Smith v. State, 66 Fla. 135, 63 South. Rep. 138. In Williams v. State, 58 Fla. 138, 50 South. Rep. 749, we announced the following principles, which we have subsequently followed: “In passing upon an assignment questioning the correctness of the ruling- of the trial court in…
-
Herndon v. State, 73 Fla. 451 (Fla. 1917)…iency of the evidence. ' “A verdict will not be set aside by an appellate court where the propriety of the verdict depends not upon the lack of evidence, but upon the credibility or weight of [*457] conflicting competent testimony.” Smith v. State, 66 Fla. 135, 63 South. Rep. 138, and Thomas v. State, supra. In Barrentine v. State, 72 Fla., 1, 72 South. Rep. 380, we held that “The refusal of the trial court to grant a new trial for insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict, or because the verdi…
-
Thomas v. State, 73 Fla. 115 (Fla. 1917)…insufficiency of the evidence. “A verdict will not be set aside by an appellate court where the propriety of the verdict depends not upon the lack of evidence, but upon the credibility of weight of conflicting competent testimony.” Smith v. State, 66 Fla. 135, 63 South. Rep. 138. Next in the order of the argument are the first and fourth assignments, which are argued together and are as follows : “The court erred in its refusal to strike the testimony of the witness, Robert Hopps, on the ground that hi…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Angus McDonald v. State, 56 Fla. 74 (Fla. 1908)