JOHN H. MCKINLAY, 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 manslaughter, finding sufficient evidence and no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on evidence and jury charges.
The court held that there was ample evidence to support the jury's verdict of conviction and that no reversible error was committed regarding the excluded evidence or the jury instructions.
“The evidence is conflicting but there appears in the record ample evidence upon which the jury could have, and did, base the verdict of conviction.”
Establishes the court's finding regarding the sufficiency of the evidence.
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 was convicted of manslaughter for causing a fatal automobile collision through reckless and negligent driving. The conviction w…
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 Reckless Driving cases and more on FLexlaw
In this case the plaintiff in error was convicted of manslaughter in the Criminal Court of Record of Duval County, Florida.
The offense was alleged to have been eohimitted by the defendant by the reckless and negligent driving of an *879automobile into collision with another automobile in which the deceased was riding.
The assignments of error are based upon the alleged insufficiency of the evidence, the exclusion of certain proffered evidence, the giving of charges and the refusal to' give certain charges.
The evidence is conflicting but there appears in the record ample evidence upon which the jury could have, and did, base the verdict of conviction.
We have considered the excluded preferred testimony and find no reversible error in the ruling of the Court in regard thereto. We have also considered the charges given and the charges refused and we think there were no fundamental rights of the defendant violated either by the giving of the charges complained of or by the refusal to give the charges requested and which were refused.
The case should be affirmed on authority of the opinions in the cases of Hopkins vs. State, 52 Fla. 39, 42 Sou. 52; Gee vs. State, 61 Fla. 22, 54 Sou. 458; Bell vs. State, 65 Fla. 505, 62 Sou. 654; Seymour vs. State, 66 Fla. 133, 63 Sou. 7, and Kerdsey vs. State, 73 Fla. 832, 71 Sou. 983. Myers vs. State, 99 Fla. 872, 128 So. 11. It is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Buford, C.J. and Whitfield, Ellis and Terrell, J.J., concur.
Brown and Davis, J. J., dissent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Kersey v. State, 73 Fla. 832 (Fla. 1917)
- Hopkins v. State, 52 Fla. 39 (Fla. 1906)
- Seymour v. State, 66 Fla. 133 (Fla. 1913)
- Gee v. State, 61 Fla. 22 (Fla. 1911)
- Bell v. State, 65 Fla. 505 (Fla. 1913)
- Monty Myers v. State, 99 Fla. 872 (Fla. 1930)