C. J. CAMERON AND LESTER KNICKERBOCKER
v.
STATE
C. J. CAMERON AND LESTER KNICKERBOCKER
STATE
140 Fla. 52
Florida Supreme Court (1939)
Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 191 So. 34
Cited by 1 case
Opinion of the Court
Writ of error brings for review judgment of conviction of the crime of grand larceny.
The chief challenge of the plaintiffs in error is to the sufficiency of the evidence.
We have carefully perused the evidence as reflected by the bill of exceptions and find it entirely ample to support the verdict and judgment.
Other contentions have been fully considered in connection with the record and on the whole record no reversible error is made to appear.
The judgment is affirmed.
So ordered.
Terrell, C. J., and Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, P. 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
-
McCLELLION v. State, 858 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…tion contained in the constitution, numerous other exceptions are spelled out in Chapter 910, Florida Statutes, but none of them are applicable in this case. In order to obtain a conviction, the state must prove venue. Croft v. State, 139 Fla. 711, 191 So. 34 (1939); Pennick v. State, 453 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Venue is not an element of the charged crime, however, and need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. It is sufficient if the jury can reasonably infer from the evidence that the crime…