PATRICK PETER DEVLIN, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
The appellate court affirmed a conviction for second-degree murder, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict and no errors in the trial court's rulings.
No, the trial court did not err. There was sufficient evidence to warrant sending the matter to the jury, and the jury's verdict was within its province.
“because all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence adduced and conclusions are in favor of the party moved against.”
This quote explains the standard for denying a motion for a directed verdict, emphasizing that if reasonable inferences favor the non-moving party, the case should proceed to the jury.
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 was convicted of second-degree murder by a jury and sentenced to life imprisonment. He appealed, arguing the trial court erred by refusi…
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 Province Of The Jury cases and more on FLexlaw
By this appeal we are called upon to review the correctness of a conviction, judgment thereon, and sentence of life imprisonment received by the appellant, subsequent to a jury verdict finding him guilty of murder in the second degree.
We have examined the record on appeal and the points urged by the appellant, which constituted error by the trial court, to wit: the refusing to grant a motion for directed verdict at the conclusion of all the evidence, and refusing to reduce the charge from second degree to manslaughter.
Examining the evidence before the trial court at the time of the ruling on the motion for directed verdict, it appears that there was sufficient to warrant the court sending the matter to the jury, because all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence adduced and conclusions are in favor of the party moved against. See: Lett v. State, Fla.App.1965, 174 So.2d 568, (opinion filed April 30, 1965), and authorities cited therein.
It appears from the record on appeal that the instructions were proper and it was within the province of the trier of the fact to render the verdict here under review, and it is not the function of this court to substitute its judgment for that of a jury. See: Dixon v. State, 143 Fla. 277, 196 So. 604; Crum v. State, Fla.App. 1965, 172 So.2d 24.
Therefore, finding no error in the record here under review, the conviction, judgment and sentence is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Garmise v. State, 311 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…r [*749] a directed verdict of acquittal, he admits all facts in evidence adduced and every conclusion favorable to the State fairly and reasonably inferable therefrom. Lett v. State, Fla.App.1965, 174 So. 2d 568, 569; Devlin v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So. 2d 82. A motion for judgment of acquittal should not be granted unless it is apparent that no legally sufficient evidence has been submitted upon which the jury could legally find a verdict of guilty. Shifrin v. State, Fla.App.1968, 210 So. 2d 18. See als…
-
Morena Williams v. State, 187 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…the conviction. An examination of the record indicates competent, sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction and, therefore, same should not be disturbed on appeal. See: Crum v. State, Fla. App.1965, 172 So. 2d 24; Devlin v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So. 2d 82; Escobar v. State, Fla.App.1966, 181 So. 2d 193. The appellants also contend error in sentencing them on Counts III, IV and V of the Information, on the grounds that said counts are lesser included offenses of Counts I and II. This point appears to…
-
Frierson v. State, 303 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See: Robinson v. State, Fla. App. 1964, 161 So. 2d 578; Devlin v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So. 2d 82; Baisden v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So. 2d 194; Shif-rin v. State, Fla.App.1968, 210 So. 2d 18; Lister v. State, Fla.App. 1969, 226 So. 2d 238; Staten v. State, Fla.App.1971, 248 So. 2d 697; Rollins v. State, Fla.App.1972, 256 So. 2d 541; Skold v.…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Crum v. State, 172 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Armos Dixon v. State, 143 Fla. 277 (Fla. 1940)
- Lett v. State, 174 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)