HERBERT POWELL
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 larceny of a cow and calf, holding that the jury's resolution of conflicting evidence regarding the defendant's good faith belief of ownership was sufficient to support the verdict.
Yes, the testimony was sufficient to support the verdict. The jury resolved the conflicting evidence against the defendant, and the trial court approved these findings.
“The point of cleavage in this case was not whether or not the accused took the cow and calf and converted them to his own use, but was whether or not the accused so took and converted them to his own use in good faith under the bona fide belief that the animals were his own property.”
This quote establishes the central legal issue the jury had to decide.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHerbert Powell was convicted of larceny of a cow and calf. The central issue was not whether Powell took the animals, but whether he did so in good fa…
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 Conflicting Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
In this case plaintiff in error was convicted of the larceny of a cow and a calf, and took writ of error.
He presents three questions, as follows:
“1. Is the testimony sufficient to support the verdict of the jury?
“2. Does the evidence identify the cow and calf alleged to have been stolen as the property of the prosecuting witness, Mr. Davenport?
“3. Did the defendant take the cow in good faith, believing her to be his own?”
The point of cleavage in this case was not whether or not the accused took the cow and calf and converted them to his own use, but was whether or not the accused so took and converted them to his own use in good faith under the bona fide belief that the animals were his own property.
The questions presented were for the jury to determine and the- jury resolved those questions on conflicting evidence against the defendant. The trial court approved the findings of the jury by denying motion for new trial.
On consideration of the entire record, we find no reversible error. So the judgment is affirmed.
So ordered.
Affirmed.
Ellis, C. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.