GREELY MCCOY, 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 larceny conviction, holding that the evidence, though conflicting, was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. The court emphasized that its role was not to reweigh the evidence but to determine if a reasonable jury could have reached the same conclusion.
Yes, the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. The court found that there was evidence tending to prove every material element of the offense, and while the property's identity could have been clearer, it was established to the jury's satisfaction, a conclusion the trial court also approved.
“In such a case the question for this court is, not what conclusion we would have arrived at from a consideration of the facts, but whether there is evidence sufficient upon which the jury uninfluenced by considerations outside the evidence could have found the verdict they did.”
This quote explains the appellate court's standard of review when assessing the sufficiency of evidence for a jury verdict.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGreely McCoy and two others were indicted for stealing two rolls of wire fence. McCoy was found guilty, while the other two were acquitted. McCoy appe…
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 Larceny cases and more on FLexlaw
Ellis, J.
The plaintiff in error with two others by the name of McCoy were indicted for the larceny of “two rolls of wire fence” of the value of twenty dollars of the property of A. J. Crutchfield. Greely McCoy was found guilty, the other two defendants were acquitted. A writ of error was taken to the judgment.
The only question presented is the sufficiency of. the evidence to support the verdict, it being contended by counsel for the plaintiff in error that the identity of the goods alleged to have been stolen was not sufficiently established. In such a case the question for this court is, not what conclusion we would have arrived at from a consideration of the facts, but whether there is evidence sufficient upon which the jury uninfluenced by considerations outside the evidence could have found the verdict they did. See Robinson v. State, 70 Fla. 628, 70 South. Rep. 595; Young v. State, 70 Fla. 211, 70 South. Rep. 19; Bellinger v. State, 70 Fla. 464, 70 South. Rep. 438.
Where the trial judge has exercised his discretion and approved the verdict, it is equivalent to a certificate that he thinks the verdict is either fully in accord with his belief upon the testimony or else that there was such a fair and reasonable doubt as to the weight of the evidence pro and con that honest and intelligent minds might fairly differ in their conclusions and that therefore the verdict of the jury should be accepted as just. See Florida Fire & Casualty Ins. Co., v. Hart, 73 Fla. 970, 75 South. Rep. 528.
The testimony in this case was conflicting, but there is evidence tending to prove every material element of the offense charged. The identity of the property alleged to have been stolen could have been more satisfactorily established, but it seems to have been established to the satisfaction of the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, and in that view the trial court concurred. We are unable to say that there was no evidence to support that con Clusion, and therefore decline to disturb the verdict. The judgment is affirmed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield and West, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
May v. State, 89 Fla. 78 (Fla. 1925)…82 Fla. 119, 89 South. Rep. 356; Hamlin v. State, 80 Fla. 217, 85 South. Rep. 685; Brown v. State, 79 Fla. 523, 84 South. Rep. 384; Wallace v. State, 76 Fla. 175, 79 South. Rep. 634; Messer v. State, 75 Fla. 619, 78 South. Rep. 680; McCoy v. State, 75 Fla. 294, 78 South. Rep. 168. The time allowed by the court for argument was limited to twenty minutes. Error is assigned upon this ruling and it is urged here that the limitation of the argument of counsel to twenty minutes is an abridgment of defendant’s…
-
Tobe Wallace v. State, 76 Fla. 175 (Fla. 1918)
-
Gadsden v. State, 77 Fla. 627 (Fla. 1919)…re is ample -competent evidence in the record of all the facts legally essential to support the verdict and we will not disturb it. Wallace v. State, 76 Fla. 175, 79 South. Rep. 634; Messer. v. State, 75 Fla. 619, 78 South. Rep. 680; McCoy v. State, 75 Fla. 294, 78 South. Rep. 168; Herndon v. State, 73 Fla. 451, 74 South. Rep. 511. The contention is also made that the trial court erred in refusing to give instructions requested on behalf of the defendant, to the effect that if the person alleged to have b…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Young v. State, 70 Fla. 211 (Fla. 1915)
- Fla. Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Hart, 73 Fla. 970 (Fla. 1917)
- Roach v. Keep, 73 Fla. 1048 (Fla. 1917)
- Robinson v. State, 70 Fla. 628 (Fla. 1916)
- Dick Bellinber v. State, 70 Fla. 464 (Fla. 1915)