ROBERT JOYNER, 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.
Robert Joyner was convicted of murder in the second degree. On appeal, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that any procedural errors were harmless in light of the evidence of guilt.
The conviction of murder in the second degree should be affirmed. Procedural errors, if any, are harmless where the evidence clearly shows guilt, and a judgment should not be reversed for errors in evidence rulings, jury instructions, or other procedural matters unless such errors injuriously affect the substantial rights of the complaining party.
“errors of procedure, if any, being harmless in view of the evidence showing guilt as found, the judgment of conviction herein of murder in the second degree should be affirmed”
Establishes the harmless error doctrine: procedural errors do not warrant reversal when evidence clearly shows guilt
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobert Joyner was convicted of murder in the second degree in the trial court. The opinion does not detail the specific facts of the crime, focusing i…
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 Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
On the authority of Larmon v. State, 81 Fla. 553, 88 South. Rep. 471; Snelling v. State, 49 Fla. 34, Fuentes v. State, 64 Fla. 64; Dickens v. State, 50 Fla. 17; Daniels v. State, 82 Fla. 387, 90 South. Rep. 159; Logan v. State, 58 Fla. 72, 50 South. Rep. 536; Gee v. State, 61 Fla. 22, 54 South. Rep. 458; Goff v. State, 60 Fla. 13, 53 South. Rep. 327; Owens v. State, 65 Fla. 483, 52 South. Rep. 651; Pittman 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, 84 Fla. 466, 94 South. Rep. 154, and other similar decisions, as to errors of procedure, if any, being harmless in view of the evidence showing guilt as found, the judgment of conviction herein of murder in the second degree should be affirmed.
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 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. Johnson v. State, 80 Fla. 61; 77 Fla. 602.
Affirmed.
Taylor, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, 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)…a. 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 Fla. 787, 108 So. 213; Stephens v. State, (F…
-
Farley v. State, 88 Fla. 159 (Fla. 1924)…an examination of the whole of the record of this 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. Wit…
Authorities Cited (15 total)
- Owens v. State, 65 Fla. 483 (Fla. 1913)
- Dickens v. State, 50 Fla. 17 (Fla. 1905)
- Gee v. State, 61 Fla. 22 (Fla. 1911)
- Goff v. State, 60 Fla. 13 (Fla. 1910)
- Dixon v. State, 79 Fla. 586 (Fla. 1920)
- Larmon v. State, 81 Fla. 553 (Fla. 1921)
- Snelling v. State, 49 Fla. 34 (Fla. 1905)
- Logan v. State, 58 Fla. 72 (Fla. 1909)
- Johnson v. State, 80 Fla. 61 (Fla. 1920)
- Fuentes v. State, 64 Fla. 64 (Fla. 1912)