ELIJAH DANIELS, ALIAS ELI DANIELS, 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.
Elijah Daniels was convicted of first-degree murder with a mercy recommendation. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that where substantial competent evidence supports a verdict and there is no indication the jury was influenced by improper considerations, the appellate court will not disturb the verdict.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed. The court held that where there is substantial competent evidence to support a verdict and nothing indicates the jury was influenced by considerations outside the evidence, the verdict will not be disturbed.
“where there is substantial competent evidence to support the verdict and there is nothing to indicate that the jury were influenced by considerations outside the evidence, the verdict will not be disturbed.”
States the controlling rule for appellate review of jury verdicts in criminal cases
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDaniels was convicted of first-degree murder. Daniels testified in his own defense, presenting a plausible and straightforward account. The State's wi…
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 First Degree Murder cases and more on FLexlaw
Browne, C. J.
The plaintiff in error was convicted of murder in the first degree, with recommendation to mercy.
The ease is here for review on writ of error. The only question involved is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict. The defendant testified in his own behalf and produced no other witnesses. His testimony was plausible, rather straight-forward and seems to have the ear marks of truthfulness.
The State’s witnesses contradict each other in several material matters. Some testified that the defendant fired two shots while standing, and as the deceased was advancing towards him, two other eye witnesses testified that the deceased and the defendant came together and the shots were fired while they were on the ground. All agree that the deceased was the larger man of the two, and that he was on top of the defendant, when they were struggling on the ground.
By denying the motion for a new trial, the Circuit Judge placed his stamp of approval on a verdict rendered upon this testimony. It is a well settled rule of this Court that “where there is substantial competent evidence to support the verdict and there is nothing to indicate that the jury were influenced by considerations outside the evidence, the verdict will not be disturbed.” Wallace v. State, 76 Fla. 175, 79 South. Rep. 634; Drayton v. State, 78 Fla. 254, 82 South. Rep. 801; Habersham v. State, 80 Fla. 240, 85 South. Rep. 655; Hamlin v. State, 80 Fla. 217, 85 South. Rep. 685; Brooke v. State, 80 Fla. 81, 86 South. Rep. 333; Witt v. State, 80 Fla. 38, 85 South. Rep. 249.
In a criminal ease the jury has the right to reject any testimony however reasonable, and to accept that which may seem unreasonable to others, and if the trial court approves of such a verdict and refuses to set it aside, this Court is committed to the rule heretofore referred to, and will not interfere with it.
The judgment is affirmed.
Taylor, Whitfield, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Holstun & Son v. Embry, 124 Fla. 554 (Fla. 1936)…sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict merely inquires whether there appears to be substantial evidence to support it and nothing exists to indicate that the jury were influenced by considerations outside the evidence. Daniels v. State, 82 Fla. 387, 90 South. Rep. 159; Fla. East Coast Ry. Co. v. Thompson, 93 Fla. 30, 111 South. Rep. 525; Welles v. Bryant, 68 Fla. 113, 66 South. Rep. 562; Powell v. State, 93 Fla. 756, 112 South. Rep. 608; [*564] McMurray v. Basnett, 18 Fla. 609; Alexander v. Rh…
-
Joyner v. State, 85 Fla. 384 (Fla. 1923)…Per Curiam. On the authority of Larmon v. State, 81 Fla. 553, 88 South. Rep. 471; Snelling v. State, 49 Fla. 34, Fuentes v. State, 64 Fla. 64; Dickens v. State, 50 Fla. 17; Daniels v. State, 82 Fla. 387, 90 South. Rep. 159; Logan v. State, 58 Fla. 72, 50 South. Rep. 536; Gee v. State, 61 Fla. 22, 54 South. Rep. 458; Goff v. State, 60 Fla. [*385] 13, 53 South. Rep. 327; Owens v. State, 65 Fla. 483, 52 South. Rep. 651; Pittman v. State, 82 Fla. 24, 8…
Authorities Cited
- Tobe Wallace v. State, 76 Fla. 175 (Fla. 1918)
- Witt v. State, 80 Fla. 38 (Fla. 1920)
- Hamlin v. State, 80 Fla. 217 (Fla. 1920)
- Drayton v. State, 78 Fla. 254 (Fla. 1919)
- Habersham v. State, 80 Fla. 240 (Fla. 1920)
- Brooke v. State, 80 Fla. 81 (Fla. 1920)