JOE EVANS AND WILLIE BROWN, PLAINTIFFS 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 receiving stolen property as to one defendant but reversed it for another due to insufficient evidence, holding that while some assignments of error were settled by precedent, the evidence did not support the conviction for one of the plaintiffs in error.
The court held that while the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction of Willie Brown, it was insufficient to support the conviction of Joe Evans. The court found no other reversible error.
“We have examined the record in the light of each of these assignments and while the evidence is conflicting, there is ample predicate for the verdict. and judgment as to the defendant, Brown, but as to the defendant, Evans, the evidence is insufficient.”
This quote explains the court's finding regarding the sufficiency of evidence for each defendant.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJoe Evans and Willie Brown were indicted and convicted for receiving and concealing stolen property, with each sentenced to three years in the State P…
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 Receiving Stolen Property cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiffs in error were indicted and convicted for receiving and concealing stolen property. Each was sentenced to three years in the State Penitentiary and they seek to be relieved of that judgment by writ of error.
It is contended that the trial Court committed error in his charge to the jury, in his admission of testimony, in his refusal to instruct a verdict for the defendants and in his denial of defendant’s motion for new trial.
We have examined the record in the light of each of these assignments and while the evidence is conflicting, there is ample predicate for the verdict. and judgment as to the defendant, Brown, but as to the defendant, Evans, the evidence is insufficient. Otherwise no reversible error was committed.
The questions raised have been settled by repeated decisions of this Court so a discussion of them would serve no useful purpose. The judgment below is accordingly affirmed as to Brown but it is reversed for a new trial as to Evans.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur.
Buford, C.J., dissents as to reversal as to Evans.
Brown, J., not participating.