CARL CHESTNUT, 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 assault with intent to commit murder in the second degree, finding sufficient evidence and harmless error in the jury instructions.
Yes, there was ample evidence to support the verdict, and while some charges were poorly worded, the overall charge was fair and legally accurate, rendering any error harmless.
“We have examined the record and there appears ample evidence to support the verdict.”
This quote establishes the court's finding 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 intelligenceThe plaintiff in error was charged with assault with intent to commit murder in the first degree, but was convicted of assault with intent to commit m…
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 Assault With Intent To Commit Murder cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff in error was informed against in the Criminal Court of Record of Polk County for assault with intent to commit murder in the first degree. He was tried and convicted of assault with intent to commit murder in the second degree and sentenced to five years in the state penitentiary. He seeks relief from that judgment by writ of error.
Overruling the motion for new trial, the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict and the alleged misleading effect of certain charges given by the trial court are assigned as error.
We have examined the record and there appears ample evidence to support the verdict. Some of the charges fail to conform to good English usage but the whole charge was fair and conformed to a reasonably accurate statement of the law. If any error was committed, it was harmless for which reversal does not lie. Section 2812 Revised General Statutes of 1920 (Section 4499 Compiled General Laws of 1927).
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Davis, J. J., concur.
Buford, C.J., and Brown, J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Ellis, J., agrees to the conclusion of affirmance.