CLARENCE DRAYTON, 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.
Clarence Drayton was convicted of obtaining property by false personation and sentenced to two and a half years hard labor. On appeal, the Florida Supreme Court rejected his challenges to the trial court's evidentiary rulings and the sufficiency of evidence supporting the conviction.
The court held that the trial court did not err in overruling the demurrer to evidence because it was procedurally defective and no joinder was made. The court further held that a defendant is not entitled as of right to an instruction directing a not guilty verdict. Finally, there was substantial competent evidence to support the jury's verdict.
“a defendant is not entitled as of right to an instruction to the jury to return a verdict of not guilty”
Establishes that trial courts have discretion to refuse directed verdict instructions for defendants, even when the defense requests one.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDrayton was indicted in Manatee County Circuit Court for obtaining property by false personation of another. After trial, a jury found him guilty as c…
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 Competent Substantial Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
West, J.
— Plaintiff in error was indicted in the Circuit Court of Manatee County upon a charge of obtaining' property by false personation of another. Upon trial he was found guilty as charged and sentenced to serve a term of two and one-half years at hard labor in the State’s prison. Thereupon he took writ of error from this court. The plaintiff in error will be referred to in this opinion as the defendant.
Several questions are raised by assignments of error, but three of them only are argued in the brief of counsel on behalf of defendant.
The first question presented is whether the trial court erred in overruling a demurrer interposed by defendant to the evidence offered by the State in support of the charge against him. At the close of the State’s case counsel for defendant filed his demurrer to the evidence. No specific facts were admitted upon the record. The demurrer simply averred that no evidence had been offered of certain material allegations of the indictment. There was no joinder on demurrer, and the proper procedure would have been to strike it or disregard it; but,, since the question sought to be raised was not presented in such a way that defendant was entitled to have it considered, the order overruling the demurrer can not be said to be harmful. Holland v. State, 39 Fla. 178, 22 South. Rep. 298; Duncan v. State, 29 Fla. 439, 10 South Rep. 815. The second contention is that the trial court erred in refusing an affirmative charge to the jury in favor of the defendant. No evidence was offered by the defendant. When the trial court overruled the demurrer to the evidence he requested the court to direct the jury to find the defendant not guilty. This request was denied. It is well settled that a defendant is not entitled as of right to an instruction to the jury to return a verdict of not guilty. There was therefore no error in this ruling. Menefee v. State, 59 Fla. 316, 51 South. Rep. 555; Ryan v. State, 60 Fla. 25, 53 South. Rep. 448; Hughes v. State, 61 Fla. 32, 55 South. Rep. 463.
The third contention is that the verdict is not sustained by the evidence. Under the rule that 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 will not be disturbed by the appellate court, this contention can not be allowed. There is sufficient competent evidence to support the verdict, and the judgment will be-affirmed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield and Ellis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lamb v. State, 90 Fla. 844 (Fla. 1925)…There is no showing whatever that the jury ivas influenced by considerations outside the record; the trial Court refused to disturb the verdict, and we find no error in his judgment. Hobbs v. State, 77 Fla. 228, 81 South. Rep. 444; Drayton v. State, 78 Fla. 254, 82 South. Rep. 801; Gadsden v. State, 77 Fla. 627, 82 South. Rep. 50. All other assignments of error are predicated on the refusal of the tidal court to give instructions requested by the defendant. All instructions refused have been examined car…
-
Yarbrough v. State, 79 Fla. 256 (Fla. 1920)…direct a verdict in favor of the defendant. There was no error in this ruling. It has been repeatedly held by this court that a defendant is not entitled as of right to an instruction to the jury to return a verdict of not guilty. Drayton v. State, 78 Fla. 254, 82 South. 801; Hughes v. State, 61 Fla. 32, 55 So. 463; Ryan v. State, 60 Fla. 25, 53 So. 448; Menatee v. State, 59 Fla. 316, 51 So. 555. The question to which most of the brief of counsel is devoted, is based upon an assignment which challenges t…
-
Park Tucker v. State, 86 Fla. 36 (Fla. 1923)…o error in this ruling. Brantley v. State, 84 Fla. 649, 94 South. Rep. 678; Grantham v. State, 83 Fla. 16, 90 South. Rep. 697; Sessions v. State, 82 Fla. 248, 89 South. Rep. 553; Yarbrough v. State, 79 Fla. 256, 83 South. Rep. 873; Drayton v. State, 78 Fla. 254, 82 South. Rep. 801. Error is assigned upon the refusal of the trial court to give each of the-following'charges: “In order that recent possession shall be considered as any evidence whatever connecting the defendants with the crime, such possessi…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lon Holland v. State, 39 Fla. 178 (Fla. 1897)
- Duncan v. State, 29 Fla. 439 (Fla. 1892)
- Hughes v. State, 61 Fla. 32 (Fla. 1911)
- John v. Ryan, 60 Fla. 25 (Fla. 1910)
- Menefee v. State, 59 Fla. 316 (Fla. 1910)