GEORGE DRIGGERS, 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.
Driggers was convicted of fraudulently altering animal marks with intent to claim ownership under Florida law. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding the evidence legally sufficient and no material errors in the trial proceedings.
The conviction was affirmed because the evidence was legally sufficient to sustain the verdict, no material errors appeared in the trial, and any errors in jury instructions or evidence admission did not injuriously affect substantial rights where the evidence left no room for reasonable doubt of guilt.
“The evidence is legally sufficient to sustain the verdict, and no material errors appear.”
Establishes the court's conclusion that the conviction rests on adequate evidentiary support and procedural regularity.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDriggers was charged with the statutory offense of fraudulently altering the marks of an animal with intent to claim the same under section 5176 of th…
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 Substantial Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
The conviction herein of the statutory offense of fraudulently altering the marks of an animal with intent to claim same (See 5176 Rev. Gen. Stats. 1920) is in accord with controlling rules of law as to the charges given, see Atzroth v. State, 10 Fla. 207; Williams v. State, 40 Fla. 480, text 483, 25 South. Rep. 143; as to charges refused being covered by charges given, Groover v. State, 82 Fla. 427, 90 South. Rep. 473; as to admission of objectionable evidence where it is in substance otherwise admitted in evidence, Mercer v. State, 83 Fla. 555, 92 South. Rep. 535, as to general objections to evidence, Flores v. State, 72 Fla. 302, 73 South. Rep. 234; as to evidence of other independent acts tending to show intent, Wallace v. State, 41 Fla. 547, 26 South. Rep. 713; as to evidence obtained on arrest, State ex rel. Stillman v. Merritt, 86 Fla. 164, 99 South. Rep. 230.
The evidence is legally sufficient to sustain the verdict, and no material errors appear. See Shuler v. State, 84 Fla. 414, 93 South. Rep. 672.
The points decided in Hart v. State, — Fla. —, 103 South. Rep. 633, appear in the head-notes.
Alleged errors in giving or refusing charges or instructions, and in the admission or rejection of testimony which do not weaken the effect of the admitted testimony, and which do not reach the legality of the trial itself will not be considered grounds for reversal where the evidence leaves no room for reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt. Hopkins v. State, 52 Fla. 39, 42 South. Rep. 52; Goff v. State, 60 Fla. 13, 53 South. Rep. 327; Gee v. State, 61 Fla. 22, 54 South. Rep. 458; Poyner v. State, 81 Fla. 726, 88 South. Rep. 762.
The judgment shofild 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, 85 South. Rep. 155; Breen v. State, 84 Fla. 518, 94 South. Rep. 383.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur. West, C. J„ and Ellis and Terrell, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fouts v. State, 133 So. 81 (Fla. 1931)…he admitted effect of the testimony and which do not reach the legality of the trial itself will not be considered grounds for reversal, where the evidence leaves no room for reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt. Driggers v. State, 90 Fla. 324, 105 So. 841. Assignments of error numbered 12 to 26 inclusive are predicated upon charges given and refused. We have carefully examined the entire charge as given by the court and also all charges asked for which were refused and conclude that the judge charg…
-
Heriberto Vila v. State, 74 So. 3d 1110 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…e not aided a party is harmless error. First Nat’l Bank v. Roberts, 92 Fla. 18, 109 So. 635 (1926); Pennington v. State, 91 Fla. 446, 107 So. 331 (1926); May v. Seymour, 17 Fla. 725 (1880). As a result, we affirm. See Driggers v. State, 90 Fla. 324, 105 So. 841 (1925) (holding refusal of requested instructions does not require reversal where defendant not prejudiced). AFFIRMED. GRIFFIN and PALMER, JJ., concur. . When there is no evidence that a defendant acted in self-defense or when the justification d…
-
Melton v. State, 159 Fla. 106 (Fla. 1947)…ason to reject; but you should not give effect to any part or reject any part, arbitrarily or capriciously.” (Emphasis supplied.) See Hinson v. State, 62 Fla. 63, 56 So. 674; Bryant v. State, 89 Fla. 26, 103 So. 170; Driggers v. State, 90 Fla. 324, 105 So. 841; Thomas v. State, 96 Fla. 243, 118 So. 22; Rogers v. State, 108 Fla. 373, 146 So. 561; Goddard v. State, 143 Fla. 28, 196 So. 596; Dougherty v. State, 154 Fla. 308, 17 So. (2nd) 290. Moreover, counsel for appellant did not object to the introductio…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (16 total)
- Wallace v. State, 26 So. 713 (Fla. 1899)
- Taylor v. State, 82 Fla. 427 (Fla. 1921)
- State v. Merritt, 86 Fla. 164 (Fla. 1923)
- Hopkins v. State, 52 Fla. 39 (Fla. 1906)
- Hart v. State, 89 Fla. 202 (Fla. 1925)
- Gee v. State, 61 Fla. 22 (Fla. 1911)
- Mercer v. State, 83 Fla. 555 (Fla. 1922)
- Groover v. State, 82 Fla. 427 (Fla. 1921)
- Goff v. State, 60 Fla. 13 (Fla. 1910)
- Williams v. State, 40 Fla. 480 (Fla. 1898)