JAKE NEWMAN, 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.
Jake Newman was convicted of manslaughter after a jury verdict found him guilty despite indictment for murder. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, rejecting his challenges to the trial court's denial of his motion for new trial and ruling on the motion in arrest of judgment.
The conviction for manslaughter is affirmed. The court declined to disturb the jury's verdict where conflicting evidence was presented regarding self-defense, the verdict was supported by the state's evidence, and the trial judge concurred in the jury's conclusion.
“That the deceased was shot and killed by the defendant as alleged is admitted.”
Establishes the uncontroverted fact of the homicide itself
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNewman was indicted for murder. At trial, evidence showed that Newman shot and killed the deceased. Newman presented evidence of lawful self-defense, …
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 Appellate Review Of Jury Verdicts cases and more on FLexlaw
West, J.
The indictment in this case charges the crime of murder. Upon a trial there was a verdict finding'.the defendant guilty of manslaughter. He was adjudged guilty and sentenced to be confined in the state prison at hard labor for a term of three years. To review this judgment writ of error was taken from this court.
The assignments of error are two only. The first presents the question of the propriety of the trial court’s order overruling a motion in arrest of judgment; the second the ruling denying defendant’s motion for new trial.' The first assignment is not argued and will be considered abandoned.
The grounds of the motion for new trial are that the verdict is not supported by the evidence or the law and is contrary to the charge of the court.
That the deceased was shot and killed by the defendant as alleged is admitted. With respect to the circumstances attending the homicide there is conflict in the evidence. The proof on behalf of defendant tends to show that he was acting in lawful self-defense. On the other hand, the evidence on behalf of the state taken alone is ample to support a conviction of a higher grade of offense than manslaughter. It is peculiarly a jury question arid has been decided adversely to defendant’s contention, and this conclusion is concurred in by the trial judge. In such a situ-
ation this court will not disturb the verdict. Hobbs v. State, 77 Fla. 228, 81 South. Rep. 444; Martinez v. State, 76 Fla. 159, 79 South. Rep. 751; Bailey v. State, 76 Fla. 213; 79 South. Rep. 730; F. E. C. Ry. Co. v. Geiger, 66 Fla. 582, 64 South. Rep. 238.
No other question is argued in the brief.
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
-
Hysler v. State, 85 Fla. 153 (Fla. 1923)…is in the record competent evidence sufficient to' sustain the verdict, although it may. be contradicted by other evidence appar [*156] cntly equally creditable, the appellate court is not authorized to disturb the jury’s findings. Newman v. State, 84 Fla. 455, 94 South. Rep. 154; Hobbs v. State, 77 Fla. 228, 81 South. Rep. 444; Martinez v. State, 76 Fla. 159, 79 South. Rep. 751; Bailey v. State, 76 Fla. 213, 79 South. Rep. 730; F. E. C. Ry. Co. v. Geiger, 66 Fla. 582, 64 South. Rep. 238. Remarks of the…
-
Manning v. State, 139 Fla. 845 (Fla. 1939)…f the insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. See Drayton v. State, 78 Fla. 254, 82 So. 801; Logan v. State, 58 Fla. 72, 50 So. 536; McNeal v. State, 76 Fla. 200, 79 So. 728; Williams v. State, 45 Fla. 128, 34 So. 279; Newman v. State, 84 Fla. 455, 94 So. 154; Williams v. State, 68 Fla. 88, 66 So. 424; Aberson v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 68 Fla. 196, 67 So. 44; Gadsden v. State, 77 Fla. 627, 82 So. 50; Key v. Moore, 78 Fla. 205, 82 So. 810; Witt v. State, 80 Fla. 38, 85 So. 249; Anderson v…
-
Sam (alias Mack) Taylor v. State, 86 Fla. 360 (Fla. 1923)…ict. None other was mentioned in the oral argument of the case. Though conflicting in some respects, there is in the record evidence sufficient to sustain the conviction. The judg [*361] mart is, therefore, affirmed on authority of Newman v. State, 84 Fla. 455, 94 South. Rep. 154; Streety v. State, 85, Fla. 387, 96 South. Rep. 160. So ordered. Whitfield, P. J., and West and Terrell, J. J., concur. Taylor, C. J., and Ellis and Browne, J. J., concur in the opinion.…
Authorities Cited
- Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Geiger, 66 Fla. 582 (Fla. 1914)
- Bailey v. State, 76 Fla. 213 (Fla. 1918)
- Hobbs v. State, 77 Fla. 228 (Fla. 1919)
- Ambrosio Martinez v. State, 76 Fla. 159 (Fla. 1918)