WILLIE MOORE AND FRANK SANDERS, 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.
Moore and Sanders were convicted of unlawfully injuring a building through dynamite explosion. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed their convictions, rejecting challenges to the sufficiency of evidence and the trial court's jury instructions.
The evidence was legally sufficient to support the conviction despite reliance on accomplice testimony, as accomplices are competent witnesses whose uncorroborated evidence may support conviction if it satisfies the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, and corroborating circumstances were also present. The trial court did not err in refusing the requested instruction because the point was substantially covered by general instructions given that were equally favorable to the defendants.
“an accomplice is a competent witness and his uncorroborated evidence is sufficient to support a conviction if it satisfies the jury of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt”
Establishes the legal standard for accomplice testimony to support conviction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMoore and Sanders were charged with unlawfully injuring a building owned by Harry Patrick through a dynamite explosion. Evidence showed statements by …
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 Corroborating Circumstances cases and more on FLexlaw
West, J;
The defendants, plaintiffs in error here, were informed against in the Criminal'Court 'of Record for Orange” County on a charge that they ‘ ‘ did unlawfully, wilfully and maliciously by the explosion of a. certain explosive subtance, to-wit: dynamite, unlawfully injure a certain building, the property of one Harry Patrick,” Upon a trial on this information a verdict of guilty as charged was returned. To the judgment imposing sentences of imprisonment on this verdict to terms of years in the State prison, writ of error was taken.
Two questions are presented by assignments of error. The first questions the sufficiency of the evidence to support the. ver diet of conviction. Aside from evidence of statements made by one of the defendants before the offense was committed that they expected to dynamite a house and admission by him after the act that they had done so, the only direct’ evidence against them is from one who participated in the’crime to the extent that he was present” 'when it was planned and accompanied the active participants, the defendants, to the scene and’was present with them when the crime, was committed, but who was not tried with defendants. But an accomplice is a competent witness and his uncorroborated evidence is sufficient to . suppoi’t a conviction if it satisfies the jury of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Knight v. State, 60 Fla. 19, 53 South. Rep. 541; Brown v. State, 42 Fla. 184, 27 South. Rep.
869. In addition to this, there was evidence of a number of corroborating circumstances. No benefit would result from a recital of/the"substance of the evidence” in” this opinion. The verdict has the approval of the trial judge who saw and heard all the witnesses and the case is well within the rule that a judgment of conviction will not be reversed by'an appellate court, 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. 619, 78 South. Rep. 680; McCoy v. State, 75 Fla. 294, 78 South. Rep. 168.
The other question is based upon an assignment which questions the ruling of the trial court refusing a requested charge on behalf of defendants. Considering the whole of the instructions given by the trial court, we think the point upon which the special charge was requested is sufficiently covered. Charges contained in the general instructions were as favorable to defendants as the special charge requested. This court has repeatedly said it is not error to refuse to give requested charges which are substantially covered by Charges given. Long v. State, 78 Fla. 464, 83 South. Rep. 293; Goff v. State, 75 Fla. 87, 77 South. Rep. 877; Fine v. State, 70 Fla. 412, 70 South. Rep. 379; Hoskins v. State, 70 Fla. 186, 69 South. Rep. 701; Hawthorne v. State, 72 Fla. 524, 73 South. Rep. 590.
No reversible error is made to appear and the judgment will be affirmed.
Affirmed.
Browne, C. J'., and Taylor, Whitfield and Ellis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Samuels v. State, 123 Fla. 280 (Fla. 1936)…mpetent witness and his uncorroborated testimony is sufficient to support a conviction if it satisfies the jury of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See Knight v. State, 60 Fla. 19, 53 So. 541; Brown v. State, 42 Fla. 184, 27 So. 869; Moore v. State, 83 Fla. 270, 91 So. 180. [*284] The plaintiffs in error assigned error on numerous rulings of the trial court on the admission and the rejection of certain testimony. Upon considering the remaining assignments of error this court is of the opinion that there is…
-
Collingsworth v. State, 93 Fla. 1110 (Fla. 1927)…lt but was a circumstance which the jury could consider. An accomplice is a competent witness and his uncorroborated evidence is sufficient to support a conviction if it satisfies a jury of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moore et al. v. The State, 83 Fla. 270, 91 So. 180, and cases cited. The verdict had the approval of the trial judge, who saw and heard all the witnesses, and who denied the motion for new trial. This case is within the rule that a judgment of conviction will not be reversed by. the Appe…
-
Donovan Studstill and John Lee Studstill v. State, 83 Fla. 623 (Fla. 1922)…ate court, 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 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…
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 (15 total)
- Fine v. State, 70 Fla. 412 (Fla. 1915)
- Goff v. State, 75 Fla. 87 (Fla. 1918)
- Tobe Wallace v. State, 76 Fla. 175 (Fla. 1918)
- Hoskins v. State, 70 Fla. 186 (Fla. 1915)
- Brown v. State, 42 Fla. 184 (Fla. 1900)
- Knight v. State, 60 Fla. 19 (Fla. 1910)
- Messer v. State, 75 Fla. 619 (Fla. 1918)
- Hamlin v. State, 80 Fla. 217 (Fla. 1920)
- Greely McCoy v. State, 75 Fla. 294 (Fla. 1918)
- Hawthorne v. State, 72 Fla. 524 (Fla. 1916)