JAMES FULTON JACK, 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.
James Fulton Jack appeals his jury conviction for breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit grand larceny, grand larceny, and aggravated assault. The appellate court affirms the conviction, finding the evidence of identification sufficient and the trial court's evidentiary rulings proper.
The appellate court held that the conflicting evidence was sufficiently competent and substantial for the jury to determine guilt, and that the trial court properly sustained objections to the leading and suggestive questions. The court found Jack was not denied an opportunity to present a defense because the objections went to the form of the questions, not the substance, and counsel made no attempt to rephrase them properly.
“Once this issue has been resolved against defendant by the rendition of a verdict of guilty, the sole authority of an appellate court is to review the record for the purpose of determining whether it contains sufficient competent substantial evidence which, if believed, will support the verdict.”
Establishes the standard of review for sufficiency of evidence on appeal after a guilty verdict
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJack was convicted by jury of breaking and entering a dwelling house with intent to commit grand larceny, grand larceny, and aggravated assault. The e…
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 Leading Questions cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, James Fulton Jack, was found guilty by a jury of breaking and entering a dwelling house with intent to commit grand larceny, grand larceny and aggravated assault.
*297On appeal, from the judgments, appellant complains of the sufficiency of the evidence to establish his identification as the perpetrator of the crime, and contends that the trial court erred in sustaining objections to questions concerning the knowledge of his friends as to where he kept the keys to a car, thereby denying him an opportunity to present a defense.
The evidence of identification was conflicting, but was sufficiently competent and substantial for the jury to determine and believe that the defendant was in fact the perpetrator of the crime committed. In Lee v. State, Fla.App.1963, 153 So.2d 351, it was said:
“It is next contended that the evidence is not sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant is guilty of the offense with which he is charged. The issue as framed by appellant’s point on appeal is one which may be decided only by the trial jury. Once this issue has been resolved against defendant by the rendition of a verdict of guilty, the sole authority of an appellate court is to review the record for the purpose of determining whether it contains sufficient competent substantial evidence which, if believed, will support the verdict. Although the evidence as revealed by this record is conflicting in many instances, the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given the evidence were questions for decision only by the jury. * * *»
The following questions were asked of the appellant at the trial:
******
“Q Do a lot of your friends know where you keep the keys ?
[COUNSEL]: Objection, leading and suggestive.
THE COURT: Sustained.
“Q Have any of your friends ever had an opportunity to see where you leave the keys when you leave the vehicle ?
[COUNSEL] : Leading and suggestive.
THE COURT: Sustained.”
The appellant contends that these rulings deprived him of the opportunity to present a defense to the crime charged. The objections went to the form of the question and not to the response sought to be elicited. There was no attempt to rephrase the questions in a proper manner. The court’s ruling as to the leading and suggestive form of the questions was correct and appellant was not denied an opportunity by the trial court to present a defense to the crime charged.
The judgment and decision of the trial court is therefore
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fast v. State, 193 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…42); Lee v. State, Fla.App.1963, 153 So. 2d 351. . Solomon, v. State, Fla.App.1962, 145 So. 2d 492; Grizzard v. State, Fla.App.1962, 139 So. 2d 161, 163, 93 A.L.R.2d 300; Jones v. State, Fla.App.1961, 128 So. 2d 754. . Jack v. State, Fla.App.1966, 183 So. 2d 296. . Henderson v. State, 94 Fla. 318, 113 So. 689, 696 (1927); Rogers v. State, 158 Fla. 582, 30 So. 2d 625 (1947).…
Authorities Cited
- LEE v. State, 153 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)