RUTH ANNE BLYTHE, 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 being an accessory after the fact to manslaughter, finding no merit in the appellant's claims regarding jury instructions, sufficiency of evidence, or prejudicial prosecutorial remarks.
The court found the appellant's contentions to be without merit.
“Appellant contends that the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on the degrees of homicide where the appellant was charged as an accessory after the fact to second degree murder; that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict and judgment and that the prosecutor's remarks were so prejudicial as to deny the appellant a fair trial.”
This quote outlines the main arguments raised by the appellant on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRuth Anne Blythe was charged with being an accessory after the fact to second-degree murder. She pleaded not guilty and was subsequently found guilty …
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 Accessory After The Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant was charged with the crime of being an accessory after the fact to second degree murder. She plead not guilty and upon trial was found guilty by the jury of the crime of being an accessory after the fact to manslaughter. The court entered its judgment and conviction and sentenced the appellant to three years in the state penitentiary.
Appellant contends that the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on the degrees of homicide where the appellant was charged as an accessory after the fact to second degree murder; that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict and judgment and that the prosecutor’s remarks were so prejudicial as to deny the appellant a fair trial.
We find these contentions to be without merit. See: Driggers v. State, 90 Fla. 324, 105 So. 841 (1925); Nickels v. State, 90 Fla. 659, 106 So. 479, 489 (1925); Killingsworth v. State, 90 Fla. 299, 105 So. 834, 837 (1925); Hearn v. State, 43 Fla. 151, 29 So. 433 (1901).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Blythe v. State, 201 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 1967)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 195 So. 2d 613.…
Authorities Cited
- Nickels v. State, 106 So. 479 (Fla. 1925)
- Killingsworth v. State, 90 Fla. 299 (Fla. 1925)
- Hearn v. State, 43 Fla. 151 (Fla. 1901)
- Driggers v. State, 90 Fla. 324 (Fla. 1925)