WILLIE CARR, 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.
Willie Carr appeals his conviction for breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony and grand larceny. The Florida Supreme Court affirms his conviction, finding sufficient circumstantial evidence of guilt despite the conviction resting entirely on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction is supported by sufficient circumstantial evidence including Carr's possession of bills matching those stolen, his extravagant spending shortly after the theft, and his alleged admission to a witness. Any impropriety in the prosecutor's argument was cured by the trial judge's prompt admonishment and did not prejudice the defendant.
“Questions of fact are peculiarly for the jury and this court will not disturb their findings where there is competent evidence to support the conclusion reached by them and there is nothing in the record to indicate that the jury were influenced by any consideration outside the evidence.”
Establishes the standard of review for jury verdicts on appeal—appellate courts will not overturn findings of fact where competent evidence supports them.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceApproximately $500 in U.S. currency was stolen from a home. Shortly after the alleged theft, Carr possessed bills of the same denomination as those st…
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 Comment On Defendant'S Failure To Testify cases and more on FLexlaw
West, J.
This case comes to this court upon writ of error for review of a judgment of conviction in the Criminal Court of Record for Orange County. -Plaintiff in error, Willie Carr, was informed against upon a charge of breaking and entering with -intent to commit a felony and of grand larceny, the information containing two counts. Upon a trial there was a general verdict of guilty as charged and defendant was sentenced to serve a term of five years at hard labor in the state prison.
There are a number of assignments assailing rulings of' the court made during the-progress of the trial.
The defendant testified as-a witness in his own behalf. He denied taking the money alleged to have been stolen and denied having a “roll” of money in Tampa, as testified by witnesses for the State. During the argument of the county solicitor he inquired why the defendant did not explain where he got “all this money.” The argument was objected to by counsel for-defendant and the county solicitor was admonished by the court not to 4 4 comment on defendant’s failure to testify.” The obvious reply to the injury was that the defendant had testified and denied that he took the money or that he had it. If there was impropriety in the argument from any viewpoint it was overcome by the prompt action of the trial judge and was not calculated to prejudice the cause of the defendant in the minds of a jury of fair intelligence. Landrum v. State, 79 Fla. 189, 84 South. Rep. 535.
Other assignments upon questions of the admissibility of evidence have been considered and no harmful error discovered.
The principal contention on behalf of plaintiff in error is that the verdict of conviction is not supported by the evidence. The property alleged to have been stolen is currency of the United States of the value of $500. The evidence is circumstantial. That a large-sum of money was taken froin the hbme' of the alleged owner is not controverted. I-t-was proved at the tidal that defendant, about the time or immediately after the alleged theft, had a number of bills of-the same denomination as those that were stolen and that he was seen by several witnesses exhibiting and spending money in such a reckless and extravagant way as to attract attention.
Considered with an alleged admission of defendant to one witness that he took the money from the home of the owner as charged, and other corroborating circumstances, we think there is sufficient basis in the evidence for a verdict of conviction upon the charge of larceny. Questions of fact are peculiarly for the jury and this court will not disturb their findings where there is competent evidence to support the conclusion reached by them and there is nothing in the record to indicate that the jury were influenced by any consideration outside the evidence. ‘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.
The judgment is affirmed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield and Ellis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rowe v. State, 87 Fla. 17 (Fla. 1924)…se differentiated between improper argu [*24] ment by counsel for State and violation of a statute, and indicates what the decision of this court would have been, had the question now presented been involved in that case. The case of Carr v. State, 84 Fla. 162, 93 South. Rep. 879, cited by the State, is not in point, as the accused testified in his own behalf, and “denied taking the money alleged to have been stolen, .and denied having a roll of money in Tampa, as testified by witnesses for the State,” T…
-
Bargesser v. State, 95 Fla. 401 (Fla. 1928)…awfully found or inferred, and it does not appear that the jury was not governed by the evidence, the verdict will not ordinarily be disturbed by this Court on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence. McDonald v. State, supra; Carr v. State, 84 Fla. 162, 92 South. Rep. 879; Parrish v. State, 105 South. Rep. 130. Affirmed. Ellis, C. J., and Brown, J., concur. Wi-iitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.…
-
Butler v. State, 94 Fla. 163 (Fla. 1927)…rly and impartially upoxi the evidence, ’ ’ we feel that the conclusion that the jury was prejudiced in its consideration of the verdict by the objectionable remark of State’s counsel, which was promptly checked, would be unwarranted. Carr v. State, 84 Fla. 162, 92 South. Rep. 879; Landrum v. State, 79 Fla. 189, 84 South. Rep. 535; Linsley v. State, supra. Certainly there [*171] appears no clear abuse of discretion by tbe trial court in tbe method of controlling tbe argument of counsel. Young v. State, 70…
Authorities Cited
- Frand Landrum v. State, 79 Fla. 189 (Fla. 1920)
- Tobe Wallace v. State, 76 Fla. 175 (Fla. 1918)
- Messer v. State, 75 Fla. 619 (Fla. 1918)
- Hamlin v. State, 80 Fla. 217 (Fla. 1920)
- Arra Brown v. State, 79 Fla. 523 (Fla. 1920)
- Smith v. Blanche D. Rentz, 82 Fla. 118 (Fla. 1921)
- Kirkland v. State, 82 Fla. 118 (Fla. 1921)