JOSEPH COUNCIL
v.
STATE
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 a conviction for assault with intent to murder, finding the evidence insufficient to sustain the jury's verdict.
No, the evidence was not of a convincing character and bore earmarks of falsehood and uncertainty, thus it was insufficient to sustain the conviction.
“The record discloses' very little, if any, evidence at all to sustain the verdict.”
Establishes the core factual issue regarding evidence sufficiency.
Previewing 1 of 4 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 under an indictment charging assault with intent to murder. The record contained very little, if any, evidence to…
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 Assault With Intent To Commit Murder cases and more on FLexlaw
The plaintiff in error was convicted under the second count in an indictment charging him with the offense of assault with intent to murder.
The record discloses' very little, if any, evidence at all to sustain the verdict. ,
In Fuller v. State, 92 Fla. 873, 110 Sou. 528, we said:
“In considering this case, we are mindful of the oft repeated rule that in 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 evi-. dence 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. *174State, 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 enunciation has been followed in Troop, et al., v. State, 98 Fla. 385, 123 Sou. 811, and Williams v. State, 100 Fla. 814, 130 Sou. 456.
Because the evidence is not of a convincing character but on the contrary, bears the earmarks' of falsehood and uncertainty, the judgment should be reversed and it is so ordered.
Reversed.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, and Terrell, J. J., concur.
Brown, J., concurs in judgment of reversal.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Callaway v. State, 112 Fla. 599 (Fla. 1933)…contradictions and anomalies stamp it with the brand of falsehood and uncertainty so that the remaining evidence in the case was insufficient upon which to rest a conviction and that under the authority of the case of Council v. State, 111 Fla. 173, 149 South. Rep. 13, and Fuller v. State, 92 Fla. 873, 110 South. Rep. 528, the judgment should be reversed. It .is true that there are s'ome contradictions in the testimony of the woman, and the testimony of others impeaches its credibility. It is difficult for this…1 / 2
-
Haag v. State, 111 Fla. 781 (Fla. 1933)…ound in the record, notwithstanding the jury’s verdict of guilty and the approval by the trial judge- of that verdict be denial of a motion for a new trial. We think the judgment should be reversed on the authority of Council v. State, 11 Fla. 173, 149 Sou. Rep. 13, wherein this Court held that where the evidence in a case of conivction for felony is not of a convincing character, but on the contrary bears earmarks of falsehood and uncertainty, the judgment should be revers'ed and a new trial awarded. See also…
-
Parker Fortner v. State, 119 Fla. 150 (Fla. 1935)…and adjudication of guilty of assault with intent to commit manslaughter alleged to have been by him perpetrated upon one Jimmie Oswald with a knife, places his chief reliance for reversal upon the doctrine heretofore laid down in Council v. State, 111 Fla. 173, 149 Sou. Rep. 13, wherein this Court held that a conviction for assault with intent to murder will be reversed for legal insufficiency of the evidence, where the evidence upon which the conviction was obtained bears earmarks of falsehood and uncert…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fuller v. State, 92 Fla. 873 (Fla. 1926)
- Nims v. State, 70 Fla. 530 (Fla. 1915)
- 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)
- Troop v. State, 98 Fla. 385 (Fla. 1929)
- Williams v. State, 100 Fla. 814 (Fla. 1930)
- Graham v. Graham, 79 So. 450 (Ala. 1918)