JOE CAMPBELL, JOSH GAVIN, CHESLEY GAVIN AND E. O. MCCURLEY, PLAINTIFFS 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.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed the conviction of four defendants for larceny of a heifer, finding the evidence insufficient to prove either that the heifer was stolen or that the defendants participated in any theft.
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to establish either that the heifer was stolen or that the defendants participated in the larceny. The court reversed the judgment because the evidence lacked the substantial quality necessary to support the conviction.
“We fail to find sufficient legal evidence to establish, first, the fact that the heifer referred to in the indictment was stolen; second, to establish the fact that the defendants, or either of them, participated in the larceny of the particular heifer referred to in the indictment, even if the same was stolen.”
States the two fundamental failures of the evidence—inability to prove the heifer was stolen and inability to prove defendants' participation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJoe Campbell, Josh Gavin, Chesley Gavin, and E. O. McCurley were convicted of larceny of a heifer belonging to George Dewrell and T. M. Weeks, who ope…
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 Evidence Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
The plaintiffs in error were convicted of the offense of larceny of a heifer, the property of George Dewrell and T. M. Weeks, co-partners doing business under the firm name of Dewrell & Weeks. The only assignment of error which requires our attention is one which challenges the sufficiency of the evidence.
We have carefully considered the evidence as presented by the record before us and we fail to find sufficient legal evidence to establish, first, the fact that the heifer referred to in the indictment was stolen; second, to establish the fact that the defendants, or either of them, participated in the larceny of the particular heifer referred to in the indictment, even if the same was stolen. We are mindful of the rule which has long obtained in this jurisdiction that, “Where there is substantial 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 conditions outside the evidence.” And, we are reluctant to reverse a judgment because of the insufficiency of the evidence when there has been sufficient evidence to warrant the trial court in submitting the issues to a jury, but in this case that substantial quality of the evidence to establish the necessary facts is lacking. The witnesses appear to have testified honestly, fairly and, as far as they know, to facts and circumstances, but they appear to have been without knowledge of the important facts necessary to establish the guilt of the accused. It, therefore, becomes our duty to reverse the judgment of the lower court, and it is so ordered.
Reversed.
Whiteield, P. J., and Terrell and Bueord, J. J., concur. Ellis, C. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion.