CHARLES H. BREEN, 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.
Charles H. Breen was convicted of murder in the second degree, and the Florida Supreme Court affirmed his conviction, finding no harmful procedural errors and sufficient evidence to support the verdict.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed. The court found no harmful errors in the rulings on evidence or jury charges, and the evidence was amply sufficient to sustain the verdict of murder in the second degree.
“No harmful errors appear in the rulings on the evidence adduced or in the charges given. The evidence is amply sufficient to sustain the verdict of murder in the second degree and the judgment of conviction rendered upon the verdict was proper.”
Establishes the court's findings that there were no harmful errors and sufficient evidentiary support for the conviction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBreen was tried for homicide. At trial, the mental and legal responsibility of the defendant for the homicide were fully investigated. The jury return…
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 Substantial Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curium.
On the authority of Ford v. State, 44 Fla. 421, 33 South. Rep. 301; Davis v. State, 46 Fla. 137, 35 South. Rep. 76; as to the plea in abatement; and of Gee v. State, 61 Fla. 22, 54 South. Rep. 458; Goff v. State, 60 Fla. 13, 53 South. Rep. 327; Owen v. State, 66 Fla. 483, 62 South. Rep. 651; Pitman v. State, 82 Fla. 24, 89 South. Rep. 336; Dixon v. State, 79 Fla. 586, 84 South. Rep. 541; Johnson v. State, 80 Fla. 61, 85 South. Rep. 155; Reeves v. State, 68 Fla. 96, 66 South. Rep. 432; Lewis v. State, and Shuler v. State, decided at this term, and other similar decisions as to harmless error of procedure, the judgment of conviction herein should be affirmed.
At the trial the mental and legal responsibility of the defendant for the homicide were fully investigated., No harmful errors appear in the rulings on the evidence adduced or in the charges given. The evidence is amply sufficient to sustain the verdict of murder in the second degree and the judgment of conviction rendered upon the verdict was proper. The judgment should not be reversed or a new trial granted in any case, civil or criminal, for .errors in rulings upon the admission or rejection of evidence, or for errors in giving or refusing charges, or for errors in any other matter of procedure or practice, unless it shall appear to the Court from a consideration of the entire cause that such errors injuriously affect the substantial rights of the complaining party. Nor should a judgment be reversed or a new trial granted on the ground that the ver diet is not sustained by the evidence, unless it appears that there was no substantial evidence to support the finding, or that, up on. the whole evidence the verdict is clearly wrong, or that the jury were not governed by the evidence in making their finding.
Affirmed.
• Browne, O. J., and. Taylor, .Whitfield, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Diamante Urga v. State, 155 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)…would not alter the end result. That is the situation here where the erroneous admission of Dr. Wright’s hearsay testimony was not so grievous as to justify a new trial. Cf. Bowden v. State, Fla.App. 1962, 137 So. 2d 621, 625; Breen v. State, 1922, 84 Fla. 518, 94 So. 383. For a brief and interesting commentary on the evolution of the harmless error doctrine see O’Steen v. State, 1927, 92 Fla. 1062, 111 So. 725, 729-730. The defendant next contends that it was prejudicial error to permit Dr. Robert J. Da…
-
Farley v. State, 88 Fla. 159 (Fla. 1924)…s proceeeding it is obvious that even if technical errors were committed, defendant was deprived of no substantial right, and assignments under this group present no reversible error. Joyner v. State, 85 Fla. 384, 96 South. Rep. 155; Breen v. State, 84 Fla. 518, 94 South. Rep. 383. The assignments predicated upon alleged misconduct of the state attorney challenge as prejudicial and inaccurate statements of the state attorney in his argument to the jury. With respect to one in which the success in previous…
-
Walker Bryant v. State, 89 Fla. 26 (Fla. 1925)…re committed in ruling’s on the admissibility of evidence or in charges given or refused, where the evidence of guilt is ample and no fundamental rights of the defendant are infringed. Lewis v. State, 84 Fla. 466, 94 South. Rep. 154; Breen v. State, 84 Fla. 518, 94 South. Rep. 383; Ward v. State, 82 Fla. 383; 90 South. Rep. 157; Poyner v. State, 81 Fla. 726, [*29] 88 South. Rep. 762; Seymour v. State, 66 Fla. 133, 63 South. Rep. 7. The judgment- will be affirmed. Affirmed. Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell,…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Owens v. State, 65 Fla. 483 (Fla. 1913)
- Gee v. State, 61 Fla. 22 (Fla. 1911)
- Goff v. State, 60 Fla. 13 (Fla. 1910)
- Dixon v. State, 79 Fla. 586 (Fla. 1920)
- Ford v. State, 44 Fla. 421 (Fla. 1902)
- Johnson v. State, 80 Fla. 61 (Fla. 1920)
- Davis v. State, 46 Fla. 137 (Fla. 1903)
- Reeves v. State, 68 Fla. 96 (Fla. 1914)
- Pittman v. State, 82 Fla. 24 (Fla. 1921)