FRANK ROBERTS, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
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.
Frank Roberts was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, he challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, but the Florida Supreme Court affirmed, finding ample evidence supporting each element of the offense.
The court held that there was ample evidence upon which a fair and reasonable jury could base a verdict of murder in the first degree, as there was evidence to support every element of the offense. The trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial.
“While the evidence (as is true of nearly all homicide cases) is conflicting there is ample evidence upon which a fair and reasonable jury could base a verdict of murder in the first degree as there is evidence to support every element of such offense.”
Establishes the sufficiency of evidence standard and applies it to affirm the conviction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRoberts was indicted on June 23, 1925, in Taylor County Circuit Court for murder in the first degree. He was convicted of murder in the first degree 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 Premeditated Design cases and more on FLexlaw
Buford, J. — The plaintiff in error was indicted on the 23rd day of June, 1925, in the Honorable Circuit Court of Taylor County, Florida, being charged in such indictment with the crime of murder in the first degree. Frank Roberts was convicted of the crime of murder of the first degree and was recommended to mercy, and was sentenced to serve the period of his natural life in the State prison; from which judgment he brings writ of error. There are three assignments of error: “1. The verdict of the jury is not supported by the evidence. ’ ’ “2nd. The verdict of the jury is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.” “3rd. There is no evidence to show a premeditated design on the part of the plaintiff in error to kill the deceased.” We have carefully considered the evidence in this case, and while the evidence (as is true of nearly all homicide cases) is conflicting there is ample evidence upon which a fair and reasonable jury could base a verdict of murder in the first degree as there is evidence to support every element of such offense.
The trial court heard the evidence and exercising a sound discretion denied the motion for a new trial. “Trial courts have much more latitude of discretion in granting new trials on the evidence than have the appellate courts.” Carney v. Stringfellow, 73 Fla. 700, 74 So.
866. Where there is any evidence to support the verdict, the verdict will not be set aside as against the evidence, unless it may well be assumed that the jury were improperly influenced by considerations outsidQ the evidence. Sherman v. State, 17 Fla. 888, Anderson v. State, 24 Fla. 139, 3 So. 884; Hicks v. State, 25 Fla. 535, 6 So. 441; Barnhill v. State, 56 Fla. 16, 48 So. 251; McDonald v. State, 56 Fla. 74, 47 So. 485. Tbe judgment will therefore be affirmed.
Affirmed. Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell, J., concur. Brown, C. J., and Ellis and Strum, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Carney v. Stringfellow, 73 Fla. 700 (Fla. 1917)
- Angus McDonald v. State, 56 Fla. 74 (Fla. 1908)
- Miley G. Barnhill v. State, 56 Fla. 16 (Fla. 1908)
- Sherman v. State, 17 Fla. 888 (Fla. 1880)
- Hicks v. State, 25 Fla. 535 (Fla. 1889)
- Anderson v. State, 24 Fla. 139 (Fla. 1888)