M. W. MAPLES, 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 manslaughter, holding that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the jury's verdict and that no reversible errors were made during the trial.
Yes, the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict. The court found no reversible error in the trial proceedings.
“We have carefully read all the evidence and are impelled to the conclusion that it is amply sufficient.”
This quote establishes the court's finding regarding the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff in error, M. W. Maples, was indicted for murder and subsequently convicted of the lesser charge of manslaughter. He appealed the convict…
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, C. J.
M. W. Maples was indicted and tried for murder and convicted of manslaughter. Several errors are assigned, but the one most strenuously urged before us is based upon the overruling of the motion for a new trial. It is contended that the evidence adduced is not sufficient to support the verdict found. We are of the opinion that this contention has not been sustained. No useful purpose would be served by setting forth or discussing the evidence. We have carefully read all the evidence and are impelled to the conclusion that it is amply sufficient. The other assignments are so lightly insisted upon that we might well treat them as having been waived by a failure to argue them. It is sufficient to say that no error has been made to appear to us, therefore the judgment must be affirmed.
Taylor, Hocker and Whitfield, J. J., concur. Cockrell, J., absent by reason of illness in his family.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jackson v. State, 71 Fla. 189 (Fla. 1916)…n for a new trial, the grounds of which question the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. We have carefully read the transcript of the record and are of the opinion that the evidence is amply sufficient. As we held in Maples v. State, 68 Fla. 87, 66 South. Rep. 423, following numerous prior decisions of this court: “When the trial court concurs in the verdict rendered by a jury by denying the motion for new trial, and there is evidence to support it, an appellate court should refuse to dist…