LEON OLIVER, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a conviction for second-degree murder, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict despite conflicting witness testimony.
Yes, the evidence is sufficient to support the jury's verdict. The jury was entitled to believe the State's witnesses over the defendant's witnesses.
“The sole question raised here is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict.”
Identifies the central legal issue on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff in error was convicted of murder in the second degree and sentenced to twenty-eight years in prison. The State's witnesses identified th…
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 Murder cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
Writ of error in this cause is taken to a judgment imposing a sentence of twenty-eight years in the State penitentiary on the plaintiff in error, the said judgment being predicated on a verdict of murder in the second degree. The sole question raised here is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. The State’s witnesses swore positively as to the identity of and participation of the plaintiff in error in the homicide. The defendant’s witnesses contradicted the testimony of the State on every material point. The jury believed the former. It is not shown that they erred or were influenced by considerations outside the evidence.
Affirmed.
Terrell, C. J., and Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur. Whitfield, P. J., and Strum and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.