LUCY BOYINGTON, 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.
Lucy Boyington was convicted of manslaughter after her initial conviction for the same offense was reversed on procedural grounds. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the second conviction, rejecting her argument that the verdict was contrary to the evidence.
The verdict will not be disturbed where there is substantial evidence of all legally essential elements of the crime and the evidence is such that the verdict may fairly have been found upon it. The trial court's refusal to grant a new trial for insufficiency of evidence will not be reversed unless the preponderance of evidence against the verdict clearly convinces the appellate court that the verdict is wrong and unjust.
“An appellate court should not grant a new trial upon the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain a verdict of guilty affirmed by the trial court if there is some substantial evidence of all the facts legally essential to support the verdict, and the whole evidence is such that the verdict may fairly have been found on it.”
Establishes the standard for reviewing guilty verdicts on sufficiency of evidence grounds
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBoyington was indicted for murder but convicted of manslaughter. Her first conviction was reversed due to material procedural error. She was retried 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 Sufficiency Of Evidence For Conviction cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
— In this case a conviction for manslaughter on an indictment for murder was reversed for material error of procedure. Boyington v. State, 74 Fla. 258, 76 South. Rep. 774.
This writ of error was taken to a second judgment of conviction for manslaughter. The only contention here is that the verdict is contrary to the evidence.
This court will not reverse the decision of a trial court in refusing a new trial on the ground that the verdict is contrary to the evidence, unless the preponderance or want of evidence is such that the verdict must have been produced by considerations other than a due respect to the evidence. Kelly v. State, 39 Fla. 122, 22 South. Rep. 363.
A verdict will not be set aside by an appellate court where the propriety of the verdict depends, not upon the lack of evidence, but upon the credibility or weight of conflicting testimony. Childers v. State, 74 Fla. 288, 77 South. Rep. 99; Barker v. State, 74 Fla. 95, 76 South. Rep. 676.
An appellate court should not grant a new trial upon the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain a verdict of guilty affirmed by the trial court if there is some substantial evidence of all the facts legally essential to support the verdict, and the whole evidence is such that the verdict may fairly have been found on it. Where there is evidence from which all the elements of the crime may legally have been found or inferred, and it does not appear that the jury were not governed by the evidence, the verdict will not be disturbed by the appellate court on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence. Thomas v. State, 73 Fla. 115, 74 South. Rep. 1.
The refusal of the trial court to grant a new trial for insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict, or because the verdict is contrary to the evidence, will not be reversed, unless, after allowing all reasonable presumptions of its correctness, the preponderance of the evidence against the verdict is so decided as to clearly convince the appellate court that it is wrung and unjust. Padgett v. State, 64 Fla. 389, 59 South. Rep. 946. See also Smith v. State, 66 Fla. 135, 63 South. Rep. 138; McClellan v. State, 66 Fla. 215, 63 South. Rep. 419; Andrews v. State, 65 Fla. 377, 61 South. Rep. 975; Mayo v. State, 64 Fla. 95 59 South. Rep. 861; Barrentine v. State, 72 Fla. 1, 72 South. Rep. 280.
The evidence in this case is conflicting; but there is positive testimony, which the verdict indicates the jury believed, that is amply sufficient to sustain the verdict; and as there is nothing to show that the jury were not governed by the evidence, the verdict will not be disturbed, particularly when it is the second verdict for the same grade of offense, the former conviction being reversed for an error of law in the proceedings.
Judgment affirmed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Ellis and West, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Parrish v. State, 90 Fla. 25 (Fla. 1925)…urt will not disturb a verdict of guilty, which has been ap [*35] proved by the trial court in denying the motion for a new trial. Logan v. State, 58 Fla. 72, 50 South. Rep. 536; Caldwell v. State, 62 Fla. 18, 56 South. Rep. 497; Boyington v. State, 77 Fla. 602, 81 South. Rep. 890; Thompson v. State, 58 Fla. 106, 50 South. Rep. 507. Judgment affirmed. West, C. J., and Whitfield and Terrell, J. J., concur.…
-
Young v. State, 85 Fla. 348 (Fla. 1923)…sey v. State, 73 Fla. 832, 74 South. Rep. 983; Seymour v. State, 66 Fla. 133, 63 South. Rep. 7; Shuler v. State, 84 Fla. 414, 93 South. Rep. 672; Lewis v. State, 84 Fla. 466, 94 South. Rep. 154; Breen v. State, decided this term; Boyington v. State, 77 Fla. 602, 81 South. Rep. 890; Padgett v. State, 64 Fla. 389, 59 South. Rep. 946; Barrentine v. State, 72 Fla. 1, 72 South. Rep. 280; Thomas v. State, 73 Fla. 115, 74 South. Rep. 1. In this case it appears that there was on a road near the home of the deceas…
-
Williams v. State, 92 Fla. 648 (Fla. 1926)…antial, 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. Hobb v. State, 77 Fla. 228, 81 South. Rep. 444; Boyington v. State, 77 Fla. 602, 81 South. Rep. 890. The defendant contends that the evidence does not disclose that the act was wilful or malicious. “Willful” simply means intentional; “malicious,” as used in the statute, means nothing more than that the wrongful act should be do…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (13 total)
- Padgett v. State, 64 Fla. 389 (Fla. 1912)
- Thomas v. State, 73 Fla. 115 (Fla. 1917)
- Barrentine v. State, 72 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1916)
- McClellan v. State, 66 Fla. 215 (Fla. 1913)
- Smith v. State, 66 Fla. 135 (Fla. 1913)
- Kelly v. State, 39 Fla. 122 (Fla. 1897)
- Sawyers v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2026)
- Childers v. State, 74 Fla. 288 (Fla. 1917)
- Andrews v. State, 65 Fla. 377 (Fla. 1913)
- Jeptha E. Barker v. State, 74 Fla. 95 (Fla. 1917)