LAWRENCE REVELS AND ALFRED REVELS, PLAINTIFFS 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 hog larceny, holding that the evidence presented was legally sufficient to support the jury's verdict regarding the ownership of the hogs.
Yes, the evidence presented was legally sufficient to support a finding of ownership as alleged, even in the face of conflicting testimony.
“The evidence as to the size, sex and marks, as well as the color of the hair remaining on the carcasses of the hogs when seen in the market place, together with the circumstances shown in evidence, afford sufficient legal predicate for a finding of the ownership of the hogs as alleged, even though there was some testimony that hogs of another color had been bought by the defendant from a different party who had used the same mark.”
This quote explains the basis for the court's conclusion that sufficient evidence of ownership was presented.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLawrence and Alfred Revels were convicted of hog larceny. The primary contention on appeal was that the ownership of the hogs was not proven as allege…
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 Conflicting Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
On writ of error taken to a conviction of the larceny of hogs it is, contended' that the ownership of the hogs was not proven as alleged. The evidence as to the size, sex and marks, as well as the color of the hair remaining on the carcasses of the hogs when seen in the market place, together with the circumstances shown in evidence, afford sufficient legal predicate for a finding of the ownership of the hogs as alleged, even though there was some testimony that hogs of another color had been bought by the defendant from a different party who had used the same mark. There being evidence legally sufficient to sustain a verdict of conviction if believed by the jury as against the conflicting testimony, and there being nothing to indicate that the jury were not governed by the evidence adduced in making their finding, which has been approved by the trial court in denying a motion for new trial, the verdict will not be disturbed, and the judgment of conviction thereon is affirmed.
Browne, G. J., and Taylor, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.