R. R. PADGETT, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a conviction for perjury, holding that the judgment was supported by competent testimony and that any alleged errors did not materially affect the substantial rights of the defendant.
No, the judgment of conviction for perjury was supported by competent testimony, and no material or harmful errors of law or procedure were demonstrated. Therefore, the judgment should be affirmed.
“The judgment herein of conviction for perjury has ample support in competent testimony and no material or harmful errors of law or procedure are made: to appear, therefore the judgment should be and, is. affirmed.”
This quote directly states the court's conclusion regarding the conviction and the basis for affirmation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff in error, R. R. Padgett, was convicted of perjury. The conviction was based on competent testimony, and the defendant alleged several er…
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 Standard Of Review For Sufficiency Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
[*591] Per Curiam.
The judgment herein of conviction for perjury has ample support in competent testimony and no material or harmful errors of law or procedure are made: to appear, therefore the judgment should be and, is. affirmed.
The judgment should not be reversed or a new trial granted in any case, civil or criminal, for errors in rulings upon 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 verdict is not sustained by the evidence, unless it appears that there was no substantial evidence to support the finding, or that upon the whole evidence the. verdict is clearly wrong, or that the jury were not governed by the evidence in making their finding. Shuler v. State, decided at this term.
Affirmed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Palmes v. State, 397 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 1981)…staining the objection. That the trial court’s ruling was in error does not necessarily require reversal of the judgment. A judgment will not be reversed unless the error was prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant. Padgett v. State, 84 Fla. 590, 94 So. 865 (1922); Kirby v. State, 44 Fla. 81, 32 So. 836 (1902). This long standing decisional rule has also been enacted as a statute. § 924.-33, Fla.Stat. (1977). Although, in a capital case, this Court will carefully scrutinize any error before…