GEORGE BRYANT
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 hogs, finding that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the jury's guilty verdict, even though the evidence could have supported a not guilty verdict as well.
Yes, the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilty.
“We have carefully examined the evidence and find that it presents a case where a jury might have reached a verdict either of guilty or not guilty.”
This quote establishes the court's assessment of the evidence's ambiguity.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGeorge Bryant was convicted of larceny of hogs. The appellate court reviewed the evidence presented at trial to determine if it was sufficient to supp…
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 Sufficiency Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Writ of error brings for review judgment of conviction of the offense of larceny of hogs.
The sole question presented is whether or not the evidence was sufficient to support the judgment.
We have carefully examined the evidence and find that it presents a case where a jury might have reached a verdict either of guilty or not guilty. The jury did reach a verdict of guilty and the trial court approved that verdict by denying motion for a new trial.
We canot say that there is' not sufficient competent evidence in the record which, if believed by the jury, would support its verdict of guilty.
On examination of the entire record, we find no reversible error and, therefore, the judgment is affirmed.
*206Terrell, 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.