HERMAN GOODMAN
v.
STATE
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 a conviction for resisting a sheriff, finding the evidence sufficient to support the jury's verdict. The court reviewed the record and found no reversible error.
Yes, the evidence is amply sufficient to support the conviction.
“The only question presented for our determination is whether or not the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict and judgment.”
This quote identifies the sole legal issue brought before the appellate court.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHerman Goodman was charged with unlawfully, knowingly, and willfully resisting, obstructing, and opposing the Sheriff of Calhoun County. The sheriff 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 Resisting An Officer With Violence cases and more on FLexlaw
The writ of error brings for review judgment of conviction in the Circuit Court of Calhoun County under an information charging as follows: “that Herman Goodman on August 28, 1937, in said' County and State, did unlawfully, knowingly and willfully resist, obstruct and oppose J. K. Musgrove, the Sheriff of Calhoun County aforesaid, in the lawful execution of a legal duty, to-wit: proceeding to arrest one Carl Shiver for committing a felony, by offering to do violence to the person of said J. K. Musgrove; Contrary to the Statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Florida.”
The only question presented for our determination is whether or not the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict and judgment. A reading of the transcript' convinces us that the evidence was amply sufficient to support the conviction and 'that there is no reversible error dis*673closed by the record. So, the judgment should be and is affirmed.
So ordered.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, Terrell, Brown, Buford and Chapman, J. J., concur.