G. E. COOLEY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
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 aggravated assault, finding that the evidence supported the verdict and that alleged errors did not cause a miscarriage of justice. The case involved a convict guard shooting two Mexican convicts.
Yes, the evidence fully supported the verdict of aggravated assault. The alleged errors did not result in a miscarriage of justice.
“We have carefully examined the entire case as presented by the record and find that the verdict was fully supported by the evidence and that the errors complained of have resulted in no miscarriage of justice.”
This quote establishes the court's conclusion that the verdict was supported by evidence and that no reversible error occurred.
The plaintiff in error, a convict guard, was indicted for assault with intent to commit murder after shooting two county convicts. The venue was chang…
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 Assault With Intent To Commit Murder cases and more on FLexlaw
Ellis, J.
The plaintiff in error was indicted at the spring term of the circuit court for Calhoun County for assault upon Alphonso Charles Rodriguez with intent to commit murder. There was a change of venue to Jackson County. There was a conviction of aggravated assault and the defendant seeks to reverse the judgment on writ of error. Cooley was a convict guard in charge of county convicts in Calhoun County. There" were two Mexican convicts. The guard killed one of them and immediately turned upon the other about thirty or forty feet away and shot him, the latter was named Rodriguez. There are eleven assignments of error. Seven rest upon objections and exceptions to evidence and four upon the court’s refusal to give certain instructions requested by the defendant.
We have carefully examined the entire case as presented by the record and find that the verdict was fully supported by the evidence and that the errors complained of have resulted in no miscarriage of justice. Chapter 6223 Laws of Florida, Acts 1911; Section 2812 Revised General Statutes 1920.
The judgment is affirmed.
Taylor, C. J., and Whitfield, Browne and West, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Henderson v. State, 94 Fla. 318 (Fla. 1927)…la. 56, 97 So. 287; Dixon v. State, 79 Fla. 586; 84 So. 541; Settles v. [*344] State, 75 Fla. 296, 78 So. 287; Seymour v. State, 66 Fla. 133, 63 So. 7; McQuagge v. State, 80 Fla. 768, 87 So. 60; Gee v. State, 61 Fla. 22, 54 So. 458; Cooley v. State, 85 Fla. 46, 95 So. 126; Joyner v. State, 85 Fla. 384, 96 So. 155; Shuler v. State, 84 Fla. 414, 93 So. 672; Crawford v. State, 86 Fla. 94, 97 So. 288; Jacques v. State, 86 Fla. 137, 97 So. 380; White v. State, 84 Fla. 677, 95 So. 113; Holmberg v. Hardee, 90 Fl…