GEORGE STREET, 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 being a common liquor dealer, holding that any errors in jury instructions were harmless given the overall record. The court also found the evidence sufficient to sustain the conviction.
The court held that any alleged errors in jury instructions were harmless in the context of the entire record. The evidence presented was deemed amply sufficient to sustain the conviction.
“a reasonable doubt of a person’s guilt may exist, though there may not be a probability of his innocence”
The refused jury instruction that formed one of the grounds for appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGeorge Street was convicted of being a common liquor dealer, a felony under Florida law. The State's case relied heavily on testimony from individuals…
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 Harmless Error Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
On writ of error to a conviction for being a common liquor dealer, a felony under the statute, Chapter 6861, Acts of 1915, it is contended that the court erred in refusing a requested instruction that “a reasonable doubt of a person’s guilt may exist, though there may not be a probability of his innocence,” and that the evidence does not support the verdict.
The State’s case largely depended upon the testimony of witnesses employed to detect such violations of the law. The evidence being believed by the jury was amply sufficient to sustain the conviction.
If the refused request be sound law and is applicable to the evidence adduced, the court gave a full and proper charge on reasonable doubt, and also charged that “While it is entirely legitimate for the Sheriff to employ detectives or spotters to run down and ascertain those who violate the law, the court instructs you that when people act in -the capacity of private detectives or spotters their evidence should be received with caution, and it becomes the duty of the jury to scrutinize the testimony of such persons to say whether or not the testimony of the persons so acting is biased, whether the interest they served has influenced them to an extent that would reflect upon or affect their testimony.”
Even if errors were committed as asserted, they were harmless in view of the whole record.
Judgment affirmed.
Browne,, C. J., and Taylor, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Perry v. State, 146 Fla. 187 (Fla. 1941)…the error. Morris v. State, 100 Fla. 850, 130 So. 582. Even if the State Attorney was in error in asking the above question, such error is not ground for reversal unless it is prejudicial. Chancey v. State, 68 Fla. 93, 66 So. 430; Street v. State, 76 Fla. 217, 79 So. 729; Jeffcoat v. State, 103 Fla. 466, 138 So. 385. A careful examination of the record fails to show the alleged error resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The errors assigned and argued are not of such a nature as to justify the granting o…
-
Dixon v. State, 79 Fla. 586 (Fla. 1920)…State, 76 Fla. 368, 79 South. Rep. 714; Wooten v. State, 24 Fla. 335, 5 South. Rep. 39; Gee v. State, 61 Fla. 22, 54 South. Rep. 458; Johnson v. State, 55 Fla. 41, 46 South. Rep. 174; Bell v. State, 65 Fla. 505, 62 South. Rep. 654; Street v. State, 76 Fla. 217, 79 South. Rep. 729; Boyington v. State, 77 Fla. 606, 81 South. Rep. 890. The judgment should not be reversed or a new trial granted in any case, civil or criminal, for errors in rulings upon the admission or rejection of evidence or for errors in…
-
Williams v. State, 135 Fla. 255 (Fla. 1938)…utinize the testimony of such people to say whether or not the testimony of the persons so acting is biased, whether the interests they serve had influenced them to an extent that would reflect upon or affect their testimony.” See Street v. State, 76 Fla. 217, 79 So. 729.…