HARRY BRYAN, M. STEINBERG, AND JIM WALKER, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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 the conviction of two defendants for larceny while reversing the conviction of a third defendant due to insufficient evidence. The court held that the trial court erred in denying a motion for severance for one defendant.
The court held that the motion for severance should have been granted for Steinberg due to a lack of evidence against him. The court found sufficient evidence to support the convictions of Bryan and Walker.
“An inspection of the record reveals little or no evidence to support the conviction of Steinberg.”
Reasoning for reversing Steinberg's conviction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarry Bryan, M. Steinberg, and Jim Walker were convicted of larceny of two jersey cows in the Criminal Court of Record of Polk County. Steinberg moved…
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
— Plaintiffs in error were informed against, tried and convicted of the larceny of two jersey cows, in the Criminal Court of Record of Polk County. They were sentenced to serve two years in the State penitentiary and took writ of error to the judgment.
When the cause was called for trial, counsel for defendant, M. Steinberg, moved for severance and separate trial as to him (Steinberg), which motion was denied by the-court. An inspection of the record reveals little or no evidence to support the conviction of Steinberg.' The motion for severance should have been granted on authority of Suarez v. State, 95 Fla. 42, 115 So. R. 519.
As to defendants, Bryan and Walker, we have examined the assignments of error carefully and while the evidence-was in conflict there was ample competent evidence to support their conviction if believed by the jury and there is. no showing that the jury was influenced by considerations outside the record.
It follows that the judgment below is affirmed as to plaintiffs in error, Bryan and Walker, but it is reversed as to plaintiff in error, Steinberg.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Terrell, C. J., and Whitfield, Strum and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reddick v. State, 190 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)…F. 2d 17, 54 A.L.R.2d 820. The factual situation has analogy here. Cautionary instructions to the jury will not cure an otherwise erroneous denial of severance. Everitt v. United States, C. A.Fla.1960, 281 F. 2d 429. See also Bryan v. State, 1930, 100 Fla. 779, 130 So. 35, and Westbrook v. State, Fla.1953, 64 So. 2d 320, where the Florida Supreme Court reversed both cases because of improper denial of motions for severance. In Suarez, et als. v. State, 1928, 95 Fla. 42, 115 So. 519, a case personally fam…
Authorities Cited
- Emelio Suarez v. State, 95 Fla. 42 (Fla. 1928)