JOHN COLLINSWORTH, 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.
John Collinsworth was convicted of breaking and entering a store building with intent to commit a misdemeanor. He appealed to the Florida Supreme Court, raising multiple assignments of error regarding evidence admissions and jury instructions, but the court affirmed the conviction, finding the evidence legally sufficient and no harmful error.
The conviction was affirmed. The court held that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the verdict and that no harmful error was demonstrated by any of the assignments of error. Technical errors in evidentiary rulings or jury instructions do not require reversal when the evidence is sufficient and no fundamental rights are infringed.
“a judgment of conviction will not be reversed even if technical errors were committed in rulings on the admissibility of evidence or in charges given or refused where the evidence is sufficient and no fundamental rights of the defendants are infringed”
Establishes the governing standard for appellate review of conviction—technical errors do not warrant reversal if evidence is sufficient and fundamental rights are protected
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCollinsworth and Ray Howe were indicted and tried in Santa Rosa County Circuit Court for breaking and entering a store building with intent to commit …
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 Breaking And Entering With Intent To Commit A Misdemeanor cases and more on FLexlaw
West, J.
Plaintiff in error and Ray Howe were indicted and tried in the Circuit Court of Santa Rosa County upon a charge of breaking .and entering a store building with intent to commit a felony. They were convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor. To the judgment imposing sentence they both took writ of error from this Court. Subsequently, upon motion of counsel, the writ of error was dismissed as to Howe.
There are a number of assignments of error in the record. All of them, except one questioning the sufficiency of the «evidence to sustain the verdict, are based upon rulings of the trial court admitting or excluding evidence or refusing to give requested instructions to the jury. Discussion of them would be of no profit. Harmful error is not made to •appear by any of them. They are well within the established rule that a judgment of conviction will not be reversed even if technical errors were committed in rulings on the admissibility of evidence or in charges given or refused where the evidence is sufficient and no fundamental rights of the 'defendants are in fringed. Poyner v. State, 81 Fla. 726, 88 South. Rep. 762; Riggins v. State, 78 Fla. 459, 83 South. Rep. 267; Dixon v. State, 77 Fla. 143, 80 South. Rep. 741; Barker v. State, 76 Fla. 164, 79 South. Rep. 436; Settles v. State, 75 Fla. 296, 78 South. Rep. 287; Milligan v. State, 75 Fla. 815, 78 South. Rep. 535; Smith v. State, 74 Fla. 44, 76 South Rep. 334.
There is' conflict in the evidence but the jury who saw and heard the witnesses accepted as true the evidence offered in behalf of the State and their verdict has the sanction of the trial judge. The evidence is legally sufficient to support the verdict and there is nothing to indicate that the jury were influenced by considerations outside this evidence. Under the well established rule where this is the case the judgment will be affirmed. Kirkland v. State, 82 Fla. 119, 89 South. Rep. 356; Hamlin v. State, 80 Fla. 217, 85 South. Rep. 685; Brown v. State, 79 Fla. 523, 84 South. Rep. 384; Wallace v. State, 76 Fla. 175, 79 South. Rep. 634; Messer v. State, 75 Fla. 619, 78 South. Rep. 680; McCoy v. State, 75 Fla. 294, 78 South. Rep. 168.
Affirmed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield and Ellis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
May v. State, 89 Fla. 78 (Fla. 1925)…ain the material allegations of the information charging the crime. This conflict presented a question for the jury, which, when decided in due course by them, is not proper, under our system, for an appellate court to review. Collinsworth v. State, 82 Fla. 291, 89 South. Rep. 802; Kirkland v. State, 82 Fla. 119, 89 South. Rep. 356; Hamlin v. State, 80 Fla. 217, 85 South. Rep. 685; Brown v. State, 79 Fla. 523, 84 South. Rep. 384; Wallace v. State, 76 Fla. 175, 79 South. Rep. 634; Messer v. State, 75 Fla. 6…
-
Moore v. State, 83 Fla. 270 (Fla. 1922)…rt, although there may be conflicts in the evidence, where there is evidence in the record legally sufficient to support the verdict and nothing to indicate that the jury were influenced by considerations outside the evidence. Collinsworth v. State, 82 Fla. 291, 89 South. Rep. 802; Kirkland v. State, 82 Fla. 118, 89 South. Rep. 356; Hamlin v. State, 80 Fla. 217, 85 South. Rep. 685; Brown v. State, 79 Fla. 523, 84 South. Rep. 384; Wallace v. State, 76 Fla. 175, 79 South. Rep. 634; Messer v. State, 75 Fla. 6…
-
Donovan Studstill and John Lee Studstill v. State, 83 Fla. 623 (Fla. 1922)…e, where there is evidence in the record legally sufficient to support the verdict and nothing to indicate that the jury were influenced .by considerations outside the evidence Moore v. State, 83 Fla. 270, 91 South. Rep. 180; Collingsworth v. State, 82 Fla. 291, 89 South. Rep. 802; Kirkland v. State, 82 Fla. 118, 89 South. Rep. 356; Hamlin v. State, 80 Fla. 217, 85 South. Rep. 685; Brown v. State, 79 Fla. 523, 84 South. Rep. 384; Wallace v. State, 76 Fla. 175, 79 South. Rep. 634; Messer v. State, 75 Fla. 6…
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 (13 total)
- Mickens v. Mickens, 75 Fla. 391 (Fla. 1918)
- Settles v. State, 75 Fla. 296 (Fla. 1918)
- Tobe Wallace v. State, 76 Fla. 175 (Fla. 1918)
- Messer v. State, 75 Fla. 619 (Fla. 1918)
- Milligan v. State, 75 Fla. 815 (Fla. 1918)
- Hamlin v. State, 80 Fla. 217 (Fla. 1920)
- Pratt Poyner v. State, 81 Fla. 726 (Fla. 1921)
- Smith v. State, 74 Fla. 44 (Fla. 1917)
- Dixon v. State, 77 Fla. 143 (Fla. 1919)
- Greely McCoy v. State, 75 Fla. 294 (Fla. 1918)