HERBERT SPANISH AND ROSA SPANISH, ALIAS ROSA SMITH, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Herbert and Rosa Spanish for first-degree murder. The court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict and rejected arguments regarding the sufficiency of evidence and a portion of the jury charge.
Yes, the evidence was amply sufficient to support the verdict. No, the portion of the general charge was not properly before the court for review because no exception was taken.
“While the legal effect of evidence or the lack of evidence in its relation to a verdict rendered in a trial, may by appropriate proceedings be reviewed by an appellate court, yet conflicts in competent testimony, the weight of legal evidence and the credibility of competent witnesses are primarily for the determination of the jury; and where there is some substantial competent evidence of all the facts legally essential to support the verdict, and there is nothing in the record to indicate that the jury were not governed by the evidence, a 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.”
This quote establishes the standard of review for sufficiency of evidence on appeal, emphasizing deference to the jury's findings when substantial competent evidence exists.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHerbert Spanish and Rosa Spanish were jointly indicted and tried for first-degree murder along with two other defendants. The jury convicted Herbert a…
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 Jury Determination Of Facts cases and more on FLexlaw
Shackleford, J.
—Herbert Spanish, John Spanish, Rosa Spanish, alias Rosa Smith, and Dude Smith were jointly indicted and tried for the crime of murder in the first degree, which trial resulted in the conviction of Herbert Spanish and Rosa Spanish, alias Rosa Smith, of such crime, with a recommendation to the mercy of the court, and the acquittal of John Spanish and Dude Smith.
The only assignment which is presented to us is the overruling of the motion for a new trial, which questioned the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. A careful examination of the evidence impels us to the conclusion that it is amply sufficient. As we held in McClellan v. State, 66 Fla. 215, 63 South. Rep. 419, following numerous prior decisions of this court: “While the legal effect of evidence or the lack of evidence in its relation to a verdict rendered in a trial, may by appropriate proceedings be reviewed by an appellate court, yet conflicts in competent testimony, the weight of legal evidence and the credibility of competent witnesses are primarily for the determination of the jury; and where there is some substantial competent evidence of all the facts legally essential to support the verdict, and there is nothing in the record to indicate that the jury were not governed by the evidence, a 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.”
An attempt is made to question the correctness of a portion of the general charge, but as no exception was taken to such portion of the charge either at the time it was given or in the motion for a new trial, such charge is not properly before this court for review. See Williams v. State, 32 Fla. 251, 13 South. Rep. 429, wherein we held as follows: “Where charges given to the jury are assigned as error they can not be considered unless excepted to in the court below in some one of the modes provided by law.”
It follows that the judgment must be affirmed.
Taylor, C. J., and Cockrell, Whitfield and Ellis, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Kersey v. State, 73 Fla. 832 (Fla. 1917)…that the jury should hear his testimony. See Wilson v. Johnson, 51 Fla. 370, 41 South. Rep. 395, and Adams v. State, 55 Fla. 1, 46 South. Rep. 152, which we have previously cited. Also see our discussion and holding in Barton v. State, 72 Fla. 408, 73 South. Rep. 230. The sixth assignment is: “Because the lower court denied the motion of plaintiff in error, to strike the testimony of the witness, Everett Hamilton, to the effect that he had previously’made statements out of court to third parties consistent with…
-
Kirkland v. State, 93 Fla. 172 (Fla. 1921)…et aside as against the evidence, unless it may well be assumed that the jury were improperly influenced by considerations outside the evidance. Barnhill v. State, 56 Fla. 16, 48 Sou. 251; Graham v. State, 72 Fla. 510, 73 Sou. 594; Spanish v. State, 72 Fla. 420, 73 Sou. 230; Barker v. State, 74 Fla. 95, 76 Sou. 676. The 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th grounds of motion may be considered together. Dying declarations to be admissible in evidence must fii’st be shown to have been made at the time when the de…
-
Lutins v. State, 142 Fla. 288 (Fla. 1940)…he stenographic notes reflecting the testimony given by certain witnesses when the jury had asked for the reading of the testimony of only one witness is also challenged. A similar question was presented in the case of Barton v. State, 72 Fla. 408, 73 Sou. 230. On authority of the opinion and judgment in that case, we hold that the matter complained of was one to be disposed of by the exercise of the sound judicial discretion of the trial court. No abuse of discretion having been made to appear, no rever…
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
- McClellan v. State, 66 Fla. 215 (Fla. 1913)
- Williams v. State, 32 Fla. 251 (Fla. 1893)