ALBERT OLIVER AND HURLEY MANNING
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.
Albert Oliver and Hurley Manning were convicted of willfully and maliciously maiming and disfiguring a steer belonging to W. J. Bell. On appeal, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed their convictions, finding no error in the trial proceedings, jury verdict, or judicial charges.
The Court affirmed the convictions, finding that the jury verdict was the only reasonable conclusion from the evidence presented and that no error existed in the trial court's charges, evidentiary rulings, or overall record.
“The jury below, from the evidence adduced, could not have found any other verdict than was presented in the lower court.”
Establishes that the jury verdict was the only reasonable conclusion the jury could reach from the evidence, supporting affirmance of the conviction.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn June 21, 1938, Owen Bell, Albert Oliver, and Hurley Manning were charged with maiming and disfiguring a steer owned by W. J. Bell near Baldwin, Duv…
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 Malicious Mischief cases and more on FLexlaw
On June 21, 1938, Owen Bell, Albert Oliver and Hurley Manning were informed against by the County Solicitor of' Duval County, Florida, charging that the defendants wilfully and maliciously maimed and disfigured a steer, the property of W. J. Bell. The defendants were arraigned on the information .and each entered a plea of not guilty. A severance was granted and Albert Oliver and Hurley Manning were placed upon trial,. corn victed, and each sentenced to the State Prison. An appeal has been perfected to this Court and a number of assignments are argued for a reversal.
The evidence shows that the owner of the cattle and plaintiffs in error lived in the vicinity of Baldwin, Duval County, Florida; the defendants informed against took a Ford car and went to the pasture where the cattle of W. J. Bell ranged, after dark, and shot the steer in question; the gun was a single barrel shot gun', and the report was identified as a shot gun, and also the report thereof was located in the vicinity where Bell’s cattle ranged. The defendants were located by the officers and witnesses as they traveled on the highway with the Ford car and were taken into custody. One of the' defendants testified as to. his part in the crime and detailed the part performed by the other two defendants.
The defendants contended that they owned cattle ranging in the vicinity where the steer was shot, and admitted the shooting, but claimed that the animal shot was the property of one of the defendants. It is unnecessary to set out the evidence as disclosed by the record or to follow the different assignments of error argued, in the briefs. The *654jury below, from the evidence adduced, could not have found any other verdict than was presented in the lower court. The charges of the court have been' examined, objections to the admissibility of evidence likewise have been considered and the entire record reviewed, and we fail to find error therein.
The judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown, J., concur.
Terrell, C. J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Buford and Thomas 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
-
Morton S. Greenwood v. Sol Rotfort, 158 Fla. 197 (Fla. 1946)…y of contract between the defendant Greenwood and the two parties above named. Their interest in this suit, while very real, is contingent and expectant. This suit can be fully adjudicated without their presence. Steinmetz v. Wisehart, 138 Fla. 753, 190 So. 13. The interest which a party must have in the subject matter of a suit, in order to be a necessary party thereto, is a present, substantial interest, as distinguished from a mere expectancy or a future contingent interest. Green v. Grant, 143 Ill. 61…