LOUIS PAPPAS AND GUS DRIVAS, PLAINTIFFS 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 receiving and concealing stolen property, finding that while some procedural irregularities may have occurred, they did not constitute prejudicial error and the evidence supported the jury's verdict.
The court held that while some irregularities may have occurred during the trial, they did not rise to the level of prejudicial error, and the evidence presented was sufficient to support the jury's verdict.
“Some irregularities were doubtless committed in the trial, but on the whole showing made we are unable to say that the trial court abused his discretion or that prejudicial error was committed.”
This quote summarizes the court's finding regarding the trial's procedural fairness.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLouis Pappas and Gus Drivas were indicted, tried, and convicted in the Criminal Court of Record of Hillsborough County for receiving and concealing st…
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 Motion For Severance cases and more on FLexlaw
[*998] Per Curiam.
Plaintiffs in error were indicted, tried and convicted in the Criminal Court of Record of Hills-borough County, for receiving and concealing stolen property, knowing it to be stolen. They were sentenced to imprisonment in the State Penitentiary for a term of one year and seek to be relieved of this judgment on writ of error. The assignments of error are numerous and challenge the excusing of certain jurors for cause, permitting certain counsel to question the witnesses, introduction and rejection of evidence, motion for severance as to defendant Zahas, refusal to hear evidence on defendants’ motion for continuance, refusal of motion for directed verdict as to defendants and the refusal of instructions requésted in behalf of defendants.
All assignments have been thoroughly presented and we have examined the basis of each carefully. To elaborate on them would require a lengthy opinion that would serve no useful purpose since the questions raised have been frequently settled in previous adjudications of this Court. Some irregularities were doubtless committed in the trial, but on the whole showing made we are unable to say that the trial court abused his discretion or that prejudicial error was committed. The evidence amply supports the verdict, and the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur. Ellis, C. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion.