W. A. BANKS
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 affirmed a conviction for automobile larceny, holding that any errors in jury instructions were harmless given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
No, any errors in jury instructions or proof of ownership were harmless because the evidence of guilt was clear and convincing, supporting the jury's verdict.
“but the evidence is clear and convincing and under the facts shown by the record the jury should not have returned any other verdict than that which was returned.”
This quote establishes the court's primary reason for affirming the conviction, emphasizing the strength of the evidence.
Previewing 1 of 2 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 larceny of an automobile. The defendant appealed, arguing that the ownership of the property was not properly …
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 Of An Automobile cases and more on FLexlaw
In this case the plaintiff in error was convicted of the larceny of an automobile.
On writ of error to this Court he contends that the ownership of the property was not properly proven.
It is also contended that certain requested charges were improperly refused and that other charges given were not proper charges. It may be that some of the charges given were not as clear as they might have been and that some of the requested charges refused could have properly been given, but the evidence is clear and convincing and under the facts shown by the record the jury should not have returned any other verdict than that which was returned.
*835Therefore, if errors were committed they were harmless and the judgment should be affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Affirmed. ,
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Terrell, J., concurs in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Special v. Ivo Baux, M.D., 79 So. 3d 755 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…o. 2d 332, 335 (Fla.1950) (“In determining whether the error ... was harmful or prejudicial, we must decide upon examination of all the evidence whether the result would have been different had the improper evidence been excluded.”); Banks v. State, 116 Fla. 834, 156 So. 905, 906 (1934) ("[UJnder the facts shown by the record, the jury should not have returned any other verdict than that which was returned.”). . Other civil cases applying the outcome oriented analysis are Rance v. Hutchinson, 131 Fla. 460,…