EDWARD THOMAS AND GEORGE SINGLETARY, APPELLANTS,
v.
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 the convictions of two defendants for robbery, finding no merit in their arguments regarding the insufficiency of evidence, the jury charge on flight, or the jury charge on reasonable doubt.
The court held that the evidence was sufficient for identification, the charge on flight was justified by the evidence and proper in form, and the charge on reasonable doubt was adequate.
“The appellants' contention of insufficiency of the evidence on the issue of identification is not borne out by the record.”
Establishes the court's finding on the sufficiency of evidence for identification.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEdward Thomas and George Singletary were convicted of robbery. They appealed their convictions, raising several contentions.…
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 Identification Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendants have appealed from conviction of robbery. We have considered the contentions, advanced on behalf of the appellants, and find them to be without merit in the light of the record and briefs. The appellants’ contention of insufficiency of the evidence on the issue of identification is not borne out by the record. The charge given by the trial court relating to flight was justified on the evidence, and was not improper in form. See McBride v. State, Fla.App.1967, 197 So.2d 850. The charge given on reasonable doubt was not erroneous or inadequately worded. Appellants argue that validity of the charge on reasonable doubt was destroyed by failure to use the word “every” before the words “reasonable doubt,” and by not including the phrase “to a moral certainty.” We cannot agree. On reading the entire charge given on the subject of reasonable doubt, we find it sufficient. A charge that every element of *651the offense must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt does not call for less than one which provides that such proof shall be beyond every reasonable doubt, and the charge given adequately defined a reasonable doubt. The phrases “reasonable doubt” and “moral certainty,” as used in such charges, are recognized as interchangeable and synonymous. See Walton v. State, 1951, 212 Miss. 270, 54 So.2d 391.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Kimberl v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 197 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)
- McBRIDE v. State, 197 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)