JAMES REED, ALIAS ROY REED,
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 reversed a larceny conviction due to insufficient evidence, finding the identification of the stolen hog and proof of felonious intent to be weak. The court also suggested potential racial bias influenced the jury's verdict and ordered a new trial.
No, the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction. The identification of the hog and proof of felonious intent were weak, and there was evidence supporting the defendants' claim of bona fide purchase.
“We have carefully considered the evidence as presented in the record and find that it is unsatisfactory as to the identity of the alleged stolen hog.”
Establishes the court's finding regarding the insufficiency 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 intelligenceJames Reed (alias Roy Reed) was convicted of larceny of a hog. The evidence presented at trial was reviewed by the appellate court. The defense claime…
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 Ownership cases and more on FLexlaw
The writ of error brings for review judgment of conviction of the offense of larceny of a hog.
The sole question presented is whether or not the evidence is sufficient to sustain the judgment. We realize that the credibility and weight to be given evidence is a question for the jury’s determination. McDonald v. State, 56 Fla. 74, 47 Sou. 485; Tucker v. State, 86 Fla. 36, 96 Sou. 10; Capello v. State, 82 Fla. 313, 90 Sou. 191.
We have carefully considered the evidence as presented in the record and find that it is unsatisfactory as to the identity of the alleged stolen hog. The evidence of felonious intent is palpably weak and there is strong evidence to s'upport the claim of the defendants in the court below of bona fide purchase and ownership of the hog found in their possession. We apprehend that the verdict of the jury was influenced to some extent by the fact that the accused were negroes and the alleged owner of the alleged stolen hog was a white man.
For the reasons stated, we think the ends of justice will be best subserved by a new trial at which time, if accused are guilty, such guilt can be more clearly proved. See Knowles v. State, 86 Fla. 270, 97 Sou. 716.
Therefore, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
So ordered.
Terrell, C. J., and Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Brown and Chapman not participating as authorized by Section 4687 Compiled General Laws of 1927 and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this' Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lowe v. State, 154 Fla. 730 (Fla. 1944)…ablish the essential facts necessary to constitue the crime, then, and under these conditions and circumstances, it becomes the duty of this Court to reverse the cause for a new trial. See Stephens v. State, 140 Fla. 163, 191 So. 294; Reed v. State, 137 Fla. 768, 189 So. 21; Skiff v. State, 107 Fla. 90, 144 So. 323; Nims v. State, 70 Fla. 530, 70 So. 565; Fuller v. State, 92 Fla. 973, 110 So. 528; Ming v. State, 89 Fla. 280, 103 So. 618; Platt v. State, 65 Fla. 253, 61 So. 502; Townsend v. State, 95 Fla. 13…
-
Cordell v. State, 157 Fla. 295 (Fla. 1946)…onstitute the crime. —then, under these conditions and circumstances, it becomes the duty of this Court to reverse the cause for a new trial. Lowe v. State, 154 Fla. 730, 19 So. (2nd) 106; Stephens v. State, 140 Fla. 163, 191 So. 294; Reed v. State, 137 Fla. 768, 189 So. 21; Skiff v. State, 107 Fla. 90, 144 So. 323; Nims v. State, 70 Fla. 530, 70 So. 565; Fuller v. State, 92 Fla. 973, 110 So. 528; Ming v. State, 89 Fla. 280, 103 So. 618; Platt v. State, 65 Fla. 253, 61 So. 502; Townsend v. State, 95 Fla. 13…
Authorities Cited
- Angus McDonald v. State, 56 Fla. 74 (Fla. 1908)
- Knowles v. State, 86 Fla. 270 (Fla. 1923)
- Park Tucker v. State, 86 Fla. 36 (Fla. 1923)
- Andrea v. State, 82 Fla. 313 (Fla. 1921)