HERMAN R. SLAKMAN, APPELLANT,
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 a conviction for arson, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict despite the appellant's arguments about inconsistent testimony. The court also noted that a witness's alleged recantation was not properly before them on appeal.
Yes, there is competent substantial evidence to support the jury's finding of guilt. No, a recantation not properly in the record cannot be considered on this appeal.
“there is competent substantial evidence which accords with logic and reason contained therein to support the jury's finding of appellant's guilt.”
This quote establishes the court's reasoning for affirming the conviction, finding the evidence sufficient.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was convicted of arson in the lower court. On appeal, he argued that the evidence of his identity was unsatisfactory and inconsistent wi…
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 Arson cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant appeals from a judgment and sentence of the lower court in which he was found guilty of the crime of arson.
Appellant’s main argument on appeal is that the evidence as to his identity is so unsatisfactory and inconsistent with established facts as to require an acquittal or a least a new trial. We have carefully reviewed the record-on-appeal and conclude that there is competent substantial evidence which accords with logic and reason contained therein to support the jury’s finding of appellant’s guilt.
The other points raised on appeal have been carefully considered and found to be without merit.
Much of appellant’s brief is directed to an alleged recantation by a witness of his testimony. This is not properly in the record-on-appeal now before us. Nothing herein shall preclude the appellant from filing such petition as he may deem appropriate in the trial court.
Affirmed.
LILES, C. J., and HOBSON and MANN/JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. State, 226 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)…Bailey v. State (1918), 76 Fla. 103, 79 So. 748; and Ketelson v. State (Fla.App.3d 1968), 211 So. 2d 853. . See a discussion on this class of cases in Brown v. State (Fla.1968), 206 So. 2d 377. . Cf. Our dissent in Mims v. State (Fla.App.2d 1969), 222 So. 2d 221. . Cf., Greene v. City of Gulfport (Fla.1958), 103 So. 2d 115; and People v. Helbing (1882, 61 Cal. 620) (cited in Greene). . See 46 Am.Jur.2d, Judgments, § 49.…