REUBEN TURNER, 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 robbery, holding that the jury verdict was sufficiently definite for judgment and sentence, and that there was substantial legal evidence to support the verdict.
Yes, the verdict was sufficiently definite to serve as a predicate for the judgment of conviction and sentence for robbery.
“it appearing to the court that the defendant Reuben Turner alone was upon trial and that a verdict for the State and against the defendant Reuben Turner was only asked by the State Attorney in his argument upon the first count of the indictment, and the State Attorney announcing to the court that he will pray judgment upon the first count of the indictment; it is upon authority of Poyner v. State, ordered that this motion be overruled and denied.”
The court's reasoning for denying the motion in arrest of judgment, highlighting the focus on the first count of the indictment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceReuben Turner and two others were indicted for robbery and grand larceny. Turner pleaded not guilty, was granted a severance, and was found guilty by …
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 Grand Larceny cases and more on FLexlaw
Pee Curiam.
r-Plaintiff in Error and two others were jointly indicted in two counts, one for robbery, the other for grand larceny. All pleaded not guilty. A severance was granted and upon the trial of Reuben Turner the jury found “the defendant guilty.”
In an order denying a motion in arrest of judgment the court stated: “it appearing to the court that the defendant Reuben Turner alone was upon trial and that a verdict for the State and against the defendant Reuben Turner was only asked by the State Attorney in his argument upon the first count of the indictment, and the State Attorney announcing to the court that he will pray judgment upon the first count of the indictment; it is upon authority of Poyner v. State, ordered that this motion be overruled and denied.”
The value of the property the subject of the robbery was sufficiently stated in figures as “$4300.” and not in letters. As only the plaintiff in error was on trial after a severance and conviction was asked only on the first count, the verdict is sufficiently definite as a predicate for the judgment of conviction and sentence for robbery rendered by the court. There is substantial legal evidence to sustain the verdict. No material or harmful errors of procedure or of law are made to appear. Affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and West and Terrell, J. J., concur. Taylor, C. J., and Ellis and Browne, J. J., concur in the opinion.