FURMAN REICHARD
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 manslaughter conviction, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict despite some of the evidence being circumstantial. The court found that the defendant's actions of kicking and choking the victim, who was in delicate health, could reasonably be concluded by the jury to have caused her death.
Yes, the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment for manslaughter.
“The evidence has been examined and while it is in part circumstantial, it is ample to support the verdict.”
Establishes the court's finding on the sufficiency of the evidence.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff in error was indicted, tried, and convicted of manslaughter. The victim was an elderly woman in delicate health, suffering from anemia a…
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 Manslaughter cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff in error was indicted, tried, and convicted of manslaughter. He was sentenced to five years in the State penitentiary and seeks relief from that judgment by writ of error.
*470The only error relied • on for reversal is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict and judgment.
The evidence has been examined and while it is in part circumstantial, it is ample to support the verdict. It shows that the deceased was well into her sixties, that she was in delicate health, being anemic and having a bad heart and that plaintiff in error kicked and choked her. This evidence was supported by a succession of aggravated events in close succession from all of which death took place an hour or two after she was kicked and choked. On the whole, a flagrant abuse of the deceased is shown by the plaintiff in error from which the jury may reasonably have concluded that death ensued.
The judgment is affirmed.
Terrell, C. J., and Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur.
■ Chapman, J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Whitfield and Brown not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.