FRANK SHAW, 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.
This case involves an appeal from a conviction for grand larceny. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding that the circumstantial evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the jury's verdict.
Yes, the circumstantial evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the conviction for grand larceny.
“no reversible error has been made to appear.”
Establishes the court's conclusion that the trial proceedings were free of significant legal errors.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant, Frank Shaw, was convicted of grand larceny. The conviction was based entirely on circumstantial evidence. The details of the evidence a…
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
From a judgment o,f conviction for the offense of grand larceny this appeal was taken. This court, after having examined the record and briefs and having heard argument of counsel, has concluded that in the light of the evidence adduced and the rulings of the trial court, no reversible error has been made to appear.
The conviction was based on circumstantial evidence. Without stating and reviewing the evidence, which we feel would serve no useful purpose, we have concluded that the evidence presented at the trial adequately supported the verdict and was sufficient to meet the requirement for circumstantial evidence that it be consistent with guilt of the accused and be inconsistent with his innocence. See Chason v. State, 148 Fla. 540, 4 So.2d 691.
The judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed.
CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and HORTON and PEARSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. The Town OF Bithlo, 314 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)…educed to judgment) which accrued prior to exclusion judgments. The trial court erred. The bondholders were not parties to the judgments of ouster [*214] and, hence, such judgments are not a bar to the plaintiff’s claim. See, City of Ocoee v. Bell, 108 So. 2d 766 (2d DCA Fla.1959); Richmond v. Town of Largo, 155 Fla.226, 19 So. 2d 791 (1944). In view of our determination of the issues presented we feel that the cause must be remanded for a new trial consistent herewith. Reversed and remanded. OWEN, C. J.,…
Authorities Cited
- Chason v. State, 148 Fla. 540 (Fla. 1941)
- Shaw v. State, 104 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)