DOMINICK LOPRINCE, 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 robbery conviction, holding that the jury's decision on the weight of evidence and witness credibility is generally not subject to review on appeal, even when a co-defendant with similar evidence was acquitted.
Yes, the jury's determination of the weight of evidence and witness credibility is within its exclusive province and is not subject to substitution by an appellate court.
“It is well settled that the weight to be accorded such evidence, and the credibility of the witness by whom it is adduced, lies exclusively within the province of the jury.”
Establishes the legal principle that the jury is the ultimate arbiter of evidence weight and witness credibility.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDominick Loprince and John Anthony Smetana were tried together for robbery. The jury convicted Loprince but acquitted Smetana. Loprince's conviction w…
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
Appellant, Dominick Loprince, was tried before a jury jointly with one John Anthony Smetana for the crime of robbery and was convicted as charged and sentenced to fifteen years in the state penitentiary. The co-defendant, Smetana, was found not guilty.
The primary question presented for our determination turns on the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict and judgment.
Appellant contends that the judgment should be reversed because the verdict is contra to the weight of the evidence in that the evidence against the appellant is exactly the same as the evidence against the defendant Smetana, whom the jury found not guilty, with the exception of an incredible and completely improbable identification of the appellant, by the victim.
We find this contention to be without substantial merit. It is well settled that the weight to be accorded such evidence, and the credibility of the witness by whom it is adduced, lies exclusively within the province of the jury. On appeal, this court will not substitute its judgment of such matters for that of that of the jury, nor will it pit its judgment against that of the jury in the determination of factual issues presented at trial. Land v. State, Fla.1952, 59 So.2d 370; Beard v. State, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 680.
We have also carefully considered the other points on appeal in the light of the record, briefs and arguments of counsel and have concluded that no reversible error has been demonstrated.
Accordingly, the judgment and sentence appealed , are affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Jefferson v. State, 298 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…tute its judgment of such matters for that of the jury, nor will it pit its judgment against that of the jury in the determination of factual issues presented at trial. Alleman v. State, Fla.App.1973, 279 So. 2d 382; Loprince v. State, Fla.App.1969, 218 So. 2d 212; Beard v. State, Fla.App.1958, 104 So. 2d 680. At the trial Muriel Wallace, the deceased’s wife, testified that on the day of the crime she and her husband were selling ice cream on their route; two fellows, the gunman and the defendant, ran after…
-
Hargrett v. State, 255 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…iency of the evidence to identify him as the perpetrator of the crime does not present reversible error in view of the holding of the Supreme Court of Florida in State v. Sebastian, Fla.1965, 171 So. 2d 893. See also Loprince v. State, Fla.App.1969, 218 So. 2d 212; Wright v. State, Fla.App.1966, 182 So. 2d 264. In Sebastian, supra, the supreme court held: “We know of no statute or case law ir( this jurisdiction which requires more than one witness in a criminal case nor do we believe it proper for an appella…
-
Heineman v. State, 327 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…e, Fla.App. 1972, 263 So. 2d 627; and Parrish v. State, Fla.App.1957, 97 So. 2d 356. On appeal, this court can not substitute its judgment of such matters for that of the trier of fact. Jefferson v. State, supra; and Loprince v. State, Fla.App.1969, 218 So. 2d 212. We have considered the record, all points in the -briefs and arguments of counsel in the light of the controlling principles of law, and have concluded that no reversible error has been demonstrated. Therefore, for the reasons stated and upon the…
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
- Beard v. State, 104 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)
- Land v. State, 59 So.2d 370 (Fla. 1952)