S. F. MOORE, 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 grand larceny, holding that procedural errors, if any, were harmless given the ample evidence of guilt. The court also found no error in allowing the principal felon to testify about his prior conviction.
The court held that there were no reversible errors. Any potential errors in rulings on testimony were harmless, and there was sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict.
“There was no error in permitting the principal felon to tesify in this trial that he had been convicted.”
Establishes the court's ruling on the admissibility of the principal felon's testimony.
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, Moore, was convicted of feloniously counseling, hiring, inciting, and procuring another person to commit grand larceny. The pr…
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 Accessory Before The Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield J.
Moore was convicted of feloniously counseling, hiring, inciting and procuring another who was in the same indictment charged as principal in committing grand' larceny and took writ of error. There was no error in permitting the principal felon to tesify in this trial that he had been convicted. The record shows that he had pleaded guilty of grand larceny.
Testimony that the goods recovered were checked from a list made by the officer who discovered the theft was harmless if error. There is ample evidence of guilt to sustain the verdict, and errors, if any, in rulings on testimony were harmless. In this case the principal and accessory were impleaded in one indictment. The principal felon pleaded guilty “and was adjudged guilty by the court” on March 28, 1918. The accessory before the fact was thereafter, on April 3, 1918, found guilty. The transcript shows that on April 4, 1918, the principal was sentenced, and that on the same day, the accessory was sentenced. This -is sufficient as.a matter of procedure. 16 C. J. 142, et seq. Judgment affirmed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Ellis and VestJ J. J., concur. . .