LEROY DIXON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Leroy Dixon appeals his conviction on four counts related to illegally possessing and selling moonshine whiskey without proper tax stamps. The appellate court affirms the conviction, finding admissible the prosecuting witness's testimony about prior purchases and determining the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict.
The court held that the testimony was admissible under Florida law as evidence of a criminal course of conduct showing the defendant's purpose, plan, intent, and knowledge, and that the total evidence, including circumstantial evidence, was sufficient to support the jury's conviction.
“Ordinarily in the trial of a criminal case evidence of other crimes committed by the defendant is not admissible, but such testimony may be received for the purpose of showing a criminal course that the defendant was following even though such evidence tends to prove commission of an unrelated offense.”
Establishes the exception to the rule excluding evidence of other crimes when used to show a course of criminal conduct
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDixon was convicted in Hillsborough County Criminal Court of Record on four counts: possession of moonshine whiskey, failing to affix Florida excise l…
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 Possession Of Moonshine Whiskey cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a conviction in the Criminal Court of Record of Hills-borough County. The appellant, who was defendant in the lower court, was tried and convicted on four counts: (1) possession of moonshine whiskey, (2) no Florida excise liquor stamps, (3) no federal excise tax, and (4) concealing said moonshine whiskey with intent to defraud the State of the tax.
Two questions are raised. One is whether certain testimony of the prosecuting witness was admissible, which testimony concerned the purchase, the payment for and the obtaining of moonshine whiskey by the prosecuting witness from the defendant on occasions prior to the arrest of the defendant which resulted in his conviction. The second question is whether the evidence, including circumstantial evidence, is sufficient to sustain conviction.
The prosecuting witness, among other things, testified that she bought moonshine whiskey from the defendant; that in doing so she went to his house and made purchases; that she went at different times; that she would go whenever her stock was depleted; that on the night of the arrest she had gone to the defendant’s house to get whiskey but defendant was not at home ; that two days before the arrest she had paid the defendant for the last “batch of shine”; that the price she paid the defendant for the shine was $30.00 for 5 gallons; that 5 gallons would last sometimes two weeks and sometimes three.
As to the first question, the law, as enunciated in the case of Davis v. State, Fla.1956, 87 So.2d 416, 418, would be aplicable to this case.
“Ordinarily in the trial of a criminal case evidence of other crimes committed by the defendant is not admissible, but such testimony may be received for the purpose of showing a criminal course that the defendant was following even though such evidence tends to prove commission of an unrelated offense. It is not admissible to prove the defendant committed the crime charged 'but to show his purpose, plan, intent, or knowledge * * * ’ ”
As to the second question, taking the evidence as a whole, including circum*124stantial evidence, there is not such a lack thereof as would warrant the court as a matter of law to interfere with the findings of the jury. It is well settled that the court has no authority to substitute its opinion and conclusion on the questions of fact for the findings of a jury. Dixon v. State, 1940, 143 Fla. 277, 196 So. 604.
Finding no error in this case, the same is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
ALLEN, Acting Chief Judge, and SHANNON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)…o show plan, scheme or design even though it also suggested the commission of an independent crime. Further evidencing varied statements and applications of the rule see Hutchinson v. State, Fla.App.1958, 102 So. 2d 44; Dixon v. State, Fla.App.1958, 104 So. 2d 122; Gordon v. State, Fla.1958, 104 So. 2d 524; Savage v. State, Fla. 1948, 38 So. 2d 47. We have not overlooked the decisions in Lovely v. United States, 4 Cir., 169 F. 2d 386, and Gluck v. State, Fla. 1952, 62 So. 2d 71. A careful examination of the…
-
Ozzie Anderson v. State, 230 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…es “whoever, wantonly or maliciously shoots at, within, or into * * * any public or private building, occupied or unoccupied * * * Appellate Courts will not substitute their judgment for that of a jury on disputed questions of fact. Dixon v. State, 104 So. 2d 122 (Fla.App.). However, it is the duty of the Court to review the evidence to ascertain whether there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict and judgment in the lower Court. We find that although there may be a conflict in the testimony there…
-
Crosby v. State, 237 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)…show plan, scheme or design even though it also suggested the commission of an independent crime. Further evidencing varied statements and applications of the rule see Hutchinson v. State, Fla.App. 1958, 102 So. 2d 44; Dixon v. State, Fla.App.1958, 104 So. 2d 122; Gordon v. State, Fla.1958, 104 So. 2d 524; Savage v. State, Fla. 1948, 38 So. 2d 47.” In the instant case the testimony of Mr. ¿Stephens as to the prior offense was relevant in that it tended to show a common scheme or plan involving the identical…
Authorities Cited
- Armos Dixon v. State, 143 Fla. 277 (Fla. 1940)
- Davis v. State, 87 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 1956)