T. E. FULLER, 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.
T. E. Fuller was convicted of murder in the second degree, and appealed on grounds that the evidence was insufficient to establish his identity as the perpetrator. The Florida Supreme Court reversed and granted a new trial, finding that while some evidence of identity existed, the totality of the evidence, including countervailing testimony, was insufficient to sustain the conviction.
The judgment of conviction is reversed and a new trial is granted. Although some evidence of identity existed, the totality of the evidence on the essential issue of identity, when considered alongside countervailing testimony, was insufficient to support the conviction, and the interests of justice required that another jury consider the issues.
“in a criminal prosecution, a verdict of guilty will not ordinarily be disturbed upon the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence, where there is some evidence from which all the elements of the crime may have been legally found or inferred”
Establishes the standard of review for sufficiency of evidence claims in criminal cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceT. E. Fuller was convicted of murder in the second degree. The evidence presented at trial was lengthy and, in the court's view, unique in its factual…
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 Identity Of Perpetrator cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
Plaintiff in Error, hereinafter called, the defendant, was convicted of murder in the second degree. On writ of error, the principal contention is the sufficiency of the evidence to establish the identity of the defendant as the perpetrator of the homicide.
The evidence in this case is lengthy and in many essentials unique. The possibility of the occurrence of another case on substantially the same facts as are here involved is too remote to justify a review of the evidence.’
In considering this case, we are mindful of the oft repeated rule that in a criminal prosecution, a verdict of guilty will not ordinarily be disturbed upon the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence, where there is some evidence from which all the elements of the crime may have been legally found or inferred, and it does not appear that the jury was not governed by the evidence adduced at the trial. Exceptions to this rule, however, have been previously recognized by this Court in criminal cases where the evidence as to the identity of the accused as being the guilty party was not satisfactory, and also where the verdict was not in accord with the manifest justice of the case. See: Platt v. State, 65 Fla. 253; 61 South. Rep. 502; Nims v. State, 70 South. Rep. 565; Davis v. State, 76 Fla. 179; 79 South. Rep. 450; Ming v. State, 89 Fla. 280; 103 South. Rep. 618. This Court has also said that: “The verdict of a jury will not be set aside on evidence of facts complicated and contradictory and which require an investigation into the character and credit of the witness whose testimony it is necessary to compare and weigh; nor will the verdict be set aside as against the weight of the evidence unless it preponderates so strongly against the verdict that the court cannot conclude such verdict was the result of a due con sideration of the evidence; but a verdict that is clearly against the evidence should be set aside.” Armstrong v. State, 30 Fla. 170; 11 South. Rep. 618. See also: Greene v. State, 17 Fla. 669.
This Court is very reluctant to interfere with the verdict of a jury on the facts. After a most careful consideration, however, of the evidence disclosed by this record, the Court is of the opinion that while there is some evidence to identify the defendant as the guilty party, the evidence upon the essential issue of identity, taken as a whole, and considered in the light of the countervailing testimony on that question, is such that it is considered just and right that another jury should pass-upon the issues made.
The judgment is therefore reversed and a new trial granted.
Brown, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Strum and Buford, J. J., concur.
Ellis, J.,
dissenting. — I have discovered no error in the record; therefore I think the judgment should be affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (30 total)
-
Delbert Lee Tibbs v. State, 397 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 1981)…a close reading of the case leads us to think that Woodward’s guilt was not established beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. The district court also relied upon Skiff v. State, 107 Fla. 90, 144 So. 323 (1932), and Fuller v. State, 92 Fla. 873, 110 So. 528 (1926). In Skiff, the Court reversed a rape conviction because the requisite evidence of the victim’s character was unconvincing, explaining that “[t]he previous chaste character of the alleged victim is a material fact to be proved [by…
-
Pleas Forehand v. State, 126 Fla. 464 (Fla. 1936)…part of the accused to take the life of Pledger. Green v. State, 17 Fla. 669; Williams v. State, 58 Fla. 138, 50 South. Rep. 749; Ming v. State, 89 Fla. 280, 103 South. Rep. 618; Armstrong v. State, 30 Fla. 170, 11 South. Rep. 618; Fuller v. State, 92 Fla. 873; 110 South. Rep. 528; Heath v. State, 97 Fla. 330, 120 South. Rep. 846; Troop v. State, 98 Fla. 385; 123 South. Rep. 811. The above cases show that this Court has modified the common law rule “Ad questionem facti non respondent judices; ad question…
-
Lowe v. State, 154 Fla. 730 (Fla. 1944)…is Court to reverse the cause for a new trial. See Stephens v. State, 140 Fla. 163, 191 So. 294; Reed v. State, 137 Fla. 768, 189 So. 21; Skiff v. State, 107 Fla. 90, 144 So. 323; Nims v. State, 70 Fla. 530, 70 So. 565; Fuller v. State, 92 Fla. 973, 110 So. 528; Ming v. State, 89 Fla. 280, 103 So. 618; Platt v. State, 65 Fla. 253, 61 So. 502; Townsend v. State, 95 Fla. 139, 116 So. 7; Coker v. State, 83 Fla. 672, 93 So. 176; Knowles v. State, 86 Fla. 270, 97 So. 716; Davis v. State, 76 Fla. 179, 79 So. 450…
Previewing 3 of 30 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Armstrong v. State, 30 Fla. 170 (Fla. 1892)
- Nims v. State, 70 Fla. 530 (Fla. 1915)
- Claiborn Green v. State, 17 Fla. 669 (Fla. 1880)
- Platt v. State, 65 Fla. 253 (Fla. 1913)
- Reuben Davis and Rachel Smith v. State, 76 Fla. 179 (Fla. 1918)
- Ming v. State, 89 Fla. 280 (Fla. 1925)
- Graham v. Graham, 79 So. 450 (Ala. 1918)