LOVIC ADAMS
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 receiving stolen property. The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to require the state to elect between counts charging larceny and receiving stolen property, nor in denying a motion for a directed verdict, as there was sufficient evidence for the jury to consider.
No, the trial court did not err in denying the motion to elect because the charges related to the same transaction. No, the trial court did not err in denying the motion for a directed verdict because there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find guilt.
“The trial court overruled and denied the motion upon' the theory, no doubt, that the larceny of the railroad rails, and the receiving and aiding in the concealment of the same property on the same date as described in Counts 1 and 3 of the information related to the same transaction and were properly joined and that the order so made was within the sound judicial discretion of the trial court.”
Explains the trial court's reasoning for denying the motion to elect between counts.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLovic Adams was charged in an information with larceny and with buying, receiving, and aiding in the concealment of stolen railroad rails. He was foun…
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 Directed Verdict In Criminal Cases cases and more on FLexlaw
The plaintiff in error, Lovic Adams, and Geo. O. Dawson and Will Aldridge were informed against in Count 1 of an information charging them on the 8th day of September, 1936, with the larceny of one lot of railroad rails of the value of $75.00, the property of the Receivers. of the Seaboard Air Line Railway Company, a corporation. Count 2 of the information charged Will Aldridge, on the 8th day of September, 1936, with the larceny of the property described in Count 1 of the information. Count 3 of the information charged Geo. O. Dawson and Lovic Adams, of the 8th day of September, 1936, with buying, receiving and aiding in the concealment of stolen property, well knowing the same was stolen, viz: one lot of railroad rails of the value of $75.00 and property of the Receivers of the Seaboard Air Line Railway Company, a. corporation.
On the 23rd day of November, 1936, Lovic Adams, the plaintiff in error, was found guilty under the third count of the information. He presented, or caused to be presented, his motion for a new trial and upon consideration thereof the trial court entered an order overruling and denying the same. The said Lovic Adams was by the trial court sentenced to serve a period of two years in the State Prison at hard labor, and from s'aid judgment an appeal has been perfected to this Court and a number of assignments argued for a reversal thereof.
One of the first assignments presented is that during the progress of the trial in the lower court, counsel for plaintiff in error presented a motion requesting that the trial court enter an order requiring or directing the State Attorney to elect between Counts 1 and 3 of the information upon which the State of Florida would rely for a conviction. The trial court overruled and denied the motion upon' the *208theory, no doubt, that the larceny of the railroad rails, and the receiving and aiding in the concealment of the same property on the same date as described in Counts 1 and 3 of the information related to the same transaction and were properly joined and that the order so made was within the sound judicial discretion of the trial court. We find no error in this ruling. See Mayers v. State, 126 Fla. 640, 171 So. 824; Branch v. State, 76 Fla. 558, 80 So. 482; Presley v. State, 61 Fla. 46, 54 So. 567; Gantling v. State, 40 Fla. 237, 23 So. 857; Eggart v. State, 40 Fla. 527, 25 So. 144. Counsel for plaintiff in error relied upon Carlton v. State, 108 Fla. 34, 145 So. 249; Griswold v. State, 77 Fla. 505, 82 So. 44. It will be observed that Counts 1 and 3, supra, are not repugnant or inconsistent like the informations appearing in the cases cited by counsel, supra.
In support of the motion for a new trial are affidavits of jurors C. J. Brown, Percy L. King, PI. L. Giddens, and 'John Humphreys, Jr., sitting upon the trial of the defendant in the lower court. The affidavits recite the reason for filing the verdict in the lower court (these were obtained by counsel for plaintiff in error after the adjournment of court). We are at a loss to appreciate the merits or materiality of these affidavits. The lower court disregarded the same when considering and passing upon the motion for a new trial. There was - no error in this ruling. See Turner v. State, 99 Fla. 246, 126 So. 158; Linsley v. State, 88 Fla. 135, 101 So. 273; Coker v. Hayes, 16 Fla. 368; McMurray v. Basnett, 18 Fla. 609.
It is next contended that the lower court erred in overruling and denying plaintiff in error’s motion for a directed verdict after the State of Florida had rested its case. We have examined the testimony to which the motion was' directed. We think there was sufficient testimony offered on the part of the prosecution to support a verdict for the *209State, provided the jury believed the testimony. It was purely a question for the jury, and this Court is without authority to substitute its judgment for that of the jury. A verdict of not guilty in a criminal case should not be directed by a trial court unless it be apparent that no sufficient evidence has been submitted upon which the jury could legally find a verdict of guilt. See Fouts v. State, 101 Fla. 1248, 133 So. 81.
We have carefully considered the entire transcript, read the testimony made a part thereof, the authorities cited in the briefs of counsel for the respective parties have been examined, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said judgment entered by the lower court in this cause and justice requires that said judgment appealed from should be affirmed. It is the order of this Court that said judgment be, and the same is, hereby affirmed.
Terrell, C. J., and Whitfield, Brown, Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lynch v. State, 293 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1974)…should prevail and not primarily the views of the judge. The credibility and probative force of conflicting testimony should not be determined on a motion for judgment of acquittal. Holland v. State, 129 Fla. 363, 176 So. 169 (1937); Adams v. State, 138 Fla. 206, 189 So. 392 (1939); Sheehan v. Allred, 146 So. 2d 760 (Fla.App.1st, 1962); [*46] Budgen v. Brady, 103 So. 2d 672 (Fla.App.1st, 1958). There is evidence in the record to establish that the attack took place on November 29, 1970, between the hours o…
-
Garmise v. State, 311 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…rent that no legally sufficient evidence has been submitted upon which the jury could legally find a verdict of guilty. Shifrin v. State, Fla.App.1968, 210 So. 2d 18. See also, Holland v. State, 1937, 129 Fla. 363, 176 So. 169; Adams v. State, 1939, 138 Fla. 206, 189 So. 392. We find that there was substantial and sufficient competent evidence presented to support the denial by the trial court of the defendant’s motion for acquittal. The defendant’s second point is that the court erred in admitting into ev…
-
Lou Ann Andreasen v. State, 439 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…ble hypothesis but that of guilt. Amato v. State, 296 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). The trial court’s determination that there was sufficient evidence upon which a jury could find the defendant guilty is supported by the record. See Adams v. State, 138 Fla. 206, 189 So. 392 (1939). Further, the defendant’s false exculpatory statements, when considered as substantive evidence, as is permitted, see, e.g., United States ex rel. Royster v. McMann, 292 F.Supp. 116 (E.D.N.Y.1968), aff’d, 433 F. 2d 1013 (2d Cir.1…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (13 total)
- Griswold v. State, 77 Fla. 505 (Fla. 1919)
- Linsley v. State, 88 Fla. 135 (Fla. 1924)
- Gus A. Eggart v. State, 40 Fla. 527 (Fla. 1898)
- Gantling v. State, 40 Fla. 237 (Fla. 1898)
- Coker v. Hayes, 16 Fla. 368 (Fla. 1878)
- Turner v. State, 99 Fla. 246 (Fla. 1930)
- Presley v. State, 61 Fla. 46 (Fla. 1911)
- Carlton v. State, 108 Fla. 34 (Fla. 1933)
- McMurray v. Basnett, 18 Fla. 609 (Fla. 1882)
- Branch v. State, 76 Fla. 558 (Fla. 1918)