BETTY JEAN KIMBROUGH, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1969-02-25
No. K-439
WIGGINTON, C. J., and. CARROLL, DONALD K., and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
219 So. 2d 58 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1969) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.

Synopsis

The court affirmed a conviction for attempted breaking and entering, holding that the admission of a film strip showing the defendant and tools at the scene was proper.


Holding

The court held that the admission of a film strip taken by a part-time news photographer at the crime scene was not error, as it was relevant and properly obtained.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant Kimbrough was apprehended attempting to break into a furniture store with tools found nearby. He fled from officers and was captured after a…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant has appealed a judgment of conviction and sentence seeking reversal on the primary ground that the verdict finding her guilty of murder in the first degree with the recommendation of mercy is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence and the justice of the case.- Appellant grounds her contention primarily upon the argument that the testimony given by two State witnesses was of doubtful veracity and subject to grave suspicion.

We have carefully considered the evidence adduced at the trial but are unable to agree that the apparent discrepancies and contradictions in the testimony of the two State witnesses pointed out by appellant in her brief are of such nature as to warrant reversal of the judgment. It must be remembered that an acceptable jury of qualified jurors heard the evidence, observed the witnesses as they gave their testimony, and was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of appellant’s guilt. The capable judge who presided at the trial did not consider the evidence to be of such a shadowy or doubtful nature as to justify setting the verdict aside and granting a new trial. The judgment appealed reaches this court with a presumption of correctness and will be disturbed only upon a clear showing of prejudicial error. It was the province of the jury to pass upon the credibility of the witnesses and to reconcile the conflicts in the evidence, if such were found to exist. When the evidence in its entirety is objectively considered in a light most favorable to the verdict, it cannot be said with reasonable certainty that it is contrary to the justice of the cause. The judgment appealed is accordingly affirmed.

WIGGINTON, C. J., and. CARROLL, DONALD K., and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Gomez v. State, 421 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
    …PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Brown v. State, 124 So. 2d 481 (Fla.1960); Magueira v. State, 352 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Castillo v. State, 308 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Kimbrough v. State, 219 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969); Section 924.33 Fla.Stat. (1981).…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw