W. G. GILCREASE, 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.
W.G. Gilcrease was convicted of second-degree murder in Taylor County and sentenced to twenty years imprisonment. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his conviction, finding the circumstantial evidence sufficient under established precedent and rejecting his numerous assignments of error.
The circumstantial evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction under the rule announced in Hall v. State. No error was found in the admission or rejection of testimony, and the requested charges were adequately covered in the general charge given at trial.
“while the conviction is predicated on circumstantial evidence we think it complies with the rule announced by this Court in Hall v. State, 90 Fla. 719, 107 So. 246 and cases there cited. It was, therefore, sufficient to sustain the conviction.”
Establishes the legal standard for sufficiency of circumstantial evidence and the Court's application of it to affirm the conviction
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGilcrease was tried and convicted of murder in the second degree in the Circuit Court of Taylor County. He was sentenced to twenty years imprisonment …
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 Sufficiency Of Circumstantial Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
Plaintiff in error was tried and convicted of murder in the second degree in tbe Circuit Court of Taylor County. He was sentenced to twenty years imprisonment at bard labor in tbe State Penitentiary and seeks reversal of that judgment on tbe sufficiency of tbe evidence to sustain tbe verdict, error in tbe admission and rejection of testimony and tbe refusal of tbe trial court to give certain charges requested by tbe plaintiff in error. We have examined the record carefully and while tbe conviction is predicated on circumstantial evidence we think it complies with tbe rule announced by this Court in Hall v. State, 90 Fla. 719, 107 So. 246 and cases there cited. It was, therefore, sufficient to sustain tbe conviction. We find no error in tbe admission or rejection of testimony and the charges requested seem to have been sufficiently covered in tbe general charge given at tbe conclusion of tbe trial. This Court has repeatedly called the attention of counsel to the vice of assigning innumerable errors. Hoopes v. Crane, 56 Fla. 395, 47 So. 992; Mitchell v. Mason, 65 Fla. 208, 61 So. 579; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Whitney, 65 Fla. 72, 61 So. 179; Florida East Coast R. Co. v. Knowles, 68 Fla. 400, 67 So. 122; Linsley v. State, 88 Fla. 135, 101 So. 273. Here we have a record of slightly over two hundred pages, yet there are one hundred and twenty-five errors assigned. That so many errors could have been made in the trial of a case like this is beyond the comprehension of an appellate court. The sole predicate for an assignment of error is an incorrect ruling of the trial court on some question of evidentiary, procedural or pure law presented to him in due course. It should then be assigned for the purpose of correcting the trial court and arriving at a proper determination of the real issues presented in the controversy. Assigned on any other basis an assignment is in bad taste and has no place in the record. •
The judgment of the Circiut Court of Taylor County is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur. Ellis, C. J., and Brown, J., concur in the opinion.
Strum, J., not participating.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McNally v. State ex rel. Bond Realization Corp., 112 Fla. 434 (Fla. 1933)…t that has been appealed from, for alleged error committed in arriving at it or in its rendition, if error on rulings of the court in the course of arriving at the judgment be properly assigned and here duly presented and argued. Gilcrease v. State, 94 Fla. 1189, 116 Sou. Rep. 501; Proctor v. Hart, 5 Fla. 465; Summerlin v. Thompson, 31 Fla. 369, 12 Sou. Rep. 667. The sole exception is as to errors shown of record that are jurisdictional or fundamental in character, though no point on them was reserved in th…
-
H. E. Wolfe Constr. Co., Inc. v. Nila Laure Ellison, 127 Fla. 808 (Fla. 1936)…r an assignment of error is an incorrect ruling of the trial judge on some question of evidentiary, procedural or pure law presented to him in due course. Assignments not predicated on a court ruling have no place in the record. Gilcrease v. State, 94 Fla. 1189, 116 Sou. Rep. 501. In the present case there are, under the foregoing rules of law, but two valid assignments of error that can be considered, as follows: (1) Assignment Number Five: The Court erred in refusing the motion of the defendant H. E. Wo…
-
Hall v. Fla. Bd. OF Pharmacy, 177 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 1965)…h Peters v. Brown,1 Fla.1951, 55 So. 2d 334, and Dupuy v. State,1 141 So. 2d 825 (Fla.App. 3rd Dist. 1962). The misapplication of Regero v. Daugherty, Fla. 1953, 69 So. 2d 178, in this case creates a legal result in conflict with Gilcrease v. State, 94 Fla. 1189, 1928, 116 So. 501, and leads to confusion amongst members of the Bench and Bar. This court has jurisdiction under Section 4(2), Article V, Constitution of Florida, F.S.A. The first question presented by the appellant (Florida Board of Pharmacy) in…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Linsley v. State, 88 Fla. 135 (Fla. 1924)
- Doyle Hall v. State, 90 Fla. 719 (Fla. 1925)
- Mitchell v. Mason, 65 Fla. 208 (Fla. 1913)
- Hoopes v. Crane, 56 Fla. 395 (Fla. 1908)
- Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Knowles, 68 Fla. 400 (Fla. 1914)
- Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Whitney, 65 Fla. 72 (Fla. 1913)