ISAAC SMITH, 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.
Isaac Smith was convicted of breaking and entering with intent to steal and larceny. He appealed on grounds of insufficient evidence and that the jury altered its verdict under court instruction. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding the evidence sufficient and the verdict form proper.
The evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict based on confessions, recovered stolen property, and other evidence of breaking and entry. The verdict was proper in form and substance; any allegation that the jury altered the verdict under court instruction was not supported by evidence in the record, as merely a statement of fact in a motion for new trial is not self-supporting.
“There is in the record evidence of a confession by each of the defendants of the alleged offenses...This with other evidence of the breaking and entry and the theft as alleged is ample to sustain the verdict.”
The court's determination that the evidence was sufficient to support the guilty verdict on both counts.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIsaac Smith and Ben Wilson were charged in separate counts with breaking and entering a building with intent to steal property worth $50 and larceny o…
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 Larceny cases and more on FLexlaw
West, C. J.
The plaintiff in error Isaac Smith and Ben* Wilson were informed against in the Criminal Court of Record of Duval County charged in separate counts with breaking and entering a building with intent to steal property of the value of fifty dollars, and with larceny of property of the value of one hundred and sixty-seven dollars. Upon arraignment both defendants entered a plea of not guilty. The trial resulted in a verdict finding each of them guilty on both counts. To review the judgment imposing sentence of imprisonment in the State penitentiary at hard labor writ of error was taken from this court by Isaac Smith.
Two assignments of error are argued in the briefs. The first presents the question of whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict. There is in the record evidence of a confession by each of the defendants of the alleged offenses. When arraigned for preliminary hearing before a justice of the peace each of them entered a plea of guilty. Some of the stolen property was found in their possession and recovered. This with other evidence of the breaking and entry and the theft as alleged is ample to sustain the verdict.
The jury believed the evidence offered on behalf of the State .and rendered its verdict accordingly.
The record contains' nothing to indicate that the jury was in fluenced by anything other than a proper consideration of the evidence. So this assignment is not well taken. May v. State, — Fla. —, 103 South. Rep. 115; Kirkland v. State, 82 Fla. 118, 89 South. Rep. 356; Collinsworth v. State, 82 Fla. 291, 89 South. Rep. 802.
One of the grounds of the motion for new trial which was overruled, and the ruling assigned as error, is in substance, that the verdict returned by the jury was, upon instructions from the court, changed by the jury before it was received by the court and filed. This constitutes the second ground upon which plaintiff in error seeks a reversal of the judgment. We reproduce the verdict as it appears in .the record. It is as follows: “Jacksonville, Fla., June 30th, 1925. We the jury find the defendant guilty on both counts as charged in the information.
J. E. Byrnes, Foreman.” The original verdict sent to this court in response to an order of the trial court is precisely the same as the verdict contained in the record. It does appear from an inspection of the original verdict that the word “charged” is written over some other word which had been erased. What word was erased, or when or under what circumstances, is not shown. The verdict is sufficient in form and substance, and it has been repeatedly held that a statement of fact in a motion for new trial is not self-supporting. Lambright v. State, 34 Fla. 564, 16 South. Rep. 582; Gray v. State, 42 Fla. 174, 28 South. Rep.
53. No other question is presented.
Neither assignment relied on can be sustained, so the judgment will be affirmed.
Affirmed.
Ellis and Terrell, J. J., concur. Whitfield, P. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mahlon Hulst v. State, 123 Fla. 315 (Fla. 1936)…transcript together with the objections made thereto. See Nations v. Harris, 214 Ala. 339, 108 So. 29; Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Lawrence, 74 Miss. 782, 22 So. 53. Statements of fact in a motion for new trial are not self supporting. Smith v. State, 90 Fla. 555, 106 So. 415. So there is nothing in the record regarding the statement said to have been made by the State Attorney which this Court can review. The fifth question presented is whether the trial court erred in giving certain instructions to the ju…
-
Holloman v. State, 140 Fla. 59 (Fla. 1939)…ing attorney but there is nothing in the record to show what those remarks were. The argument to the jury is not reported and the allegations in the motion are not self-proving so there is no showing that the statement was made. See Smith v. State, 90 Fla. 555, 106 Sou. Rep. 415; Noble v. State, 68 Fla. 1, 66 Sou. Rep. 153; Stanley v. State, 93 Fla. 372, 112 Sou. Rep. 63. The case will, however, have to be reversed and remanded to the lower court. It is well settled in this jurisdiction that: “While, ge…
-
Burns v. State, 150 Fla. 869 (Fla. 1942)…nd unsupported motion for a new trial not accompanied by any affidavits or evidence in support thereof precludes this Court from considering the merits of the contention here presented. See Houlst v. State, 123 Fla. 315, 166 So. 828; Smith v. State, 90 Fla. 555, 106 So. 415; Blocker v. State, 90 Fla. 136, 105 So. 316; Lindsey v. State, 69 Fla. 641, 68 So. 932; Smith v. State, 57 Fla. 24, 48 So. 744; Gray v. State, 42 Fla. 174, 28 So. 53; Lambright v. State, 34 Fla. 564, 16 So. 582. The contention that the…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- May v. State, 89 Fla. 78 (Fla. 1925)
- Jenkins Lambright and Albert Stevens v. State, 34 Fla. 564 (Fla. 1894)
- Gray v. State, 42 Fla. 174 (Fla. 1900)
- Collinsworth v. State, 82 Fla. 291 (Fla. 1921)
- Smith v. Blanche D. Rentz, 82 Fla. 118 (Fla. 1921)
- Kirkland v. State, 82 Fla. 118 (Fla. 1921)