RAY SMITH AND BUCK BELLAMY, APPELLANTS,
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.
Ray Smith and Buck Bellamy appealed their convictions for larceny of a bull, challenging the sufficiency of evidence regarding ownership and identity of the animal. The appellate court affirmed their convictions, holding that where a case is tried without a jury, the trial judge's findings receive great deference and contradictions in testimony will not require reversal.
The appellate court affirmed the convictions, finding that the trial judge's findings were entitled to the weight of a jury verdict and that legal evidence by competent witnesses supported every essential element of the offense. The venue contention was found to lack merit and was properly rejected as being untimely raised for the first time on appeal.
“Where a case is tried by a circuit judge upon waiver of a jury, the judge's determination is entitled to the weight of a jury verdict before a reviewing court.”
Establishes the standard of review for bench trial convictions, giving substantial deference to trial judge findings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSmith and Bellamy were charged with larceny of a bull belonging to Earl Hendry. The defendants waived their right to a jury trial, and the case was tr…
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 Larceny cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellants, as defendants in the court below, were charged through an information with the larceny of a bull, being the property of one Earl Hendry. The defendants waived a jury trial, and the case was thereupon tried by the judge of the circuit court of Collier County. They were found guilty as charged and sentenced to a term of two years in the state prison.
Primarily, the point of this appeal, urged by the appellants, is that the evidence introduced by the state was insufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence afforded to them under the law because the state had failed to satisfactorily prove the ownership and identity of the bull as charged in the information. The appellants otherwise make no attack on the sufficiency of the evidence as the same concerns the offense.
In the case at bar, trial by, jury having been waived, the circuit judge served as both the trier of the facts and the arbiter of the law. The judge saw the witnesses and heard their testimony. He resolved the conflicts of testimony' and passed upon the credibility of the witnesses. Where a case is tried by a circuit judge upon waiver of a jury, the judge’s determination is entitled to the weight of a jury verdict before a reviewing court. 'And where there is in the record legal evidence by competent witnesses of every essential element of the offense charged, contradictions of such evidence by other witnesses will not require a reversal of a judgment or conviction because of the alleged insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. Farley v. State, 1924, 88 Fla. 159, 101 So. 239; and Peele v. State, 1944, 155 Fla. 235, 20 So.2d 120.
The trial judge found ample evidence to sustain all of the essential ele*258ments of the crime and our study of the record sustains his judgment.
There is mention of lack of proof of venue. This is belatedly presented and was not raised in the trial court either during the course of the trial or in the motion for new trial. It was not raised through any assignment of error. For the first time it was raised in the brief of the appellants. Notwithstanding this, our examination reveals there is no merit to this contention.
We find no error, and each judgment and sentence is accordingly affirmed.
Affirmed.
KANNER, Acting C. J., SHANNON, J., and WARREN, LAMAR, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1976)…so ordered. OVERTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ADKINS and ENGLAND, JJ., concur. BOYD and HATCHETT, JJ., dissent. . See, e. g., Pope v. O’Brien, 213 So. 2d 620 (1st D.C.A.Fla.1968); Cole v. Cole, 130 So. 2d 126 (1st D.C.A.Fla.1961); and Smith v. State, 118 So. 2d 257 (2d D.C.A.Fla.1960). . Catlett v. Chestnut, 107 Fla. 498, 146 So. 241 (1933); Howell v. Blackburn, 100 Fla. 114, 129 So. 341 (1930); and World Ins. Co. v. Kincaid, 145 So. 2d 268 (1st D.C.A.Fla.1962), cert. discharged, 157 So. 2d 517 (Fla.1963).…
-
Westerman v. Shell's City, Inc., 265 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 1972)…rict court is quashed with directions to reinstate the chancellor’s final judgment herein. It is so ordered. ROBERTS, C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur. . Pope v. O’Brien, 213 So. 2d 620 (Fla.App.1st 1968); Smith v. State, 118 So. 2d 257 (Fla.App.2d 1960); Cole v. Cole, 130 So. 2d 126 (Fla.App.1st 1961); and Sponholtz v. Sponholtz, 190 So. 2d 572 (Fla.1966). . Gala Showplace, Inc. v. State Beverage Dept., 143 So. 2d 578 (Fla.App.3d 1962); further proceedings in Keating v. State, ex…
-
Groneau v. State, 201 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)…udge who saw and heard the witnesses, passed upon their credibility and resolved the conflicts of testimony where there is in the record evidence by competent witnesses of every essential element of the offense charged. Smith v. State, Fla.App.1960, 118 So. 2d 257; Farley v. State, 1924, 88 Fla. 159, 101 So. 239. The trial judge’s findings were not only consistent with the guilt of the defendant but also inconsistent with his innocence. The evidence does not leave indifferent which of several hypotheses is tr…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Peele v. State, 155 Fla. 235 (Fla. 1944)
- Farley v. State, 88 Fla. 159 (Fla. 1924)
- Marshall v. Marshall, 155 Fla. 322 (Fla. 1944)