WOODY SMITH
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 manslaughter, holding that the jury was within its province to resolve conflicting evidence and that no reversible error was committed.
The evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, and no reversible error was committed.
“The evidence was conflicting and the conflicts were matters within the province of the jury to settle.”
Establishes the court's deference to the jury's role in resolving factual disputes.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWoody Smith was indicted for first-degree murder but convicted of manslaughter. The evidence presented at trial was conflicting. The jury found the ac…
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 Conflicting Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
On writ of error we review judgment of conviction of the crime of manslaughter under an indictment charging murder in the first degree.
The judgment is challenged on the ground of alleged insufficiency of the evidence.
The evidence was conflicting and the conflicts were matters within the province of the jury to settle. The jury found against the accused and the trial court declined to set aside the verdict.
It is not made to appear that reversible error was committed. See Sanford v. State, 90 Fla. 337, 106 Sou. 406; Seay v. State, 139 Fla. 291, 190 Sou. 702, and Jarvis v. State, 115 Fla. 320 and 329, 156 Sou. 310.
The judgment is affirmed.
So ordered.
Affirmed.
Terrell, C. J., 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bess v. State, 146 Fla. 562 (Fla. 1941)…the jury by denying new trial. On authority of our opinions and judgments in the cases of Johns v. State, 134 Fla. 358, 183 Sou. 732; Bowman v. State, 114 Fla. 29, 152 Sou. 739; Smith v. State, 129 Fla. [*564] 775, 176 Sou. 781, and Smith v. State, 142 Fla. 468, 194 Sou. 873, the judgment is affirmed. So ordered. Affirmed. Brown, C. J., Whitfield and Adams, J. J., concur.…
-
Lock v. State, 146 Fla. 574 (Fla. 1941)…by denying motion for new trial. Under such conditions, we should not disturb the judgment. See Johns v. State, 134 Fla. 358, 183 Sou. 732; Bowman v. State, 114 Fla. 29, 152 Sou. 739; Smith v. State, 129 Fla. 775, 176 Sou. 781, and Smith v. State, 142 Fla. 468, 194 Sou. 873. No reversible error being made to appear, the judgment is affirmed. So ordered. Brown, C. J., Whitfield, Buford and Adams, J. J., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Jarvis v. State, 115 Fla. 320 (Fla. 1934)
- Seay v. State, 139 Fla. 433 (Fla. 1939)
- Sanford v. State, 90 Fla. 337 (Fla. 1925)
- Pledger Bros. v. The W. Ry. of Ala., 90 Fla. 419 (Fla. 1925)
- State ex rel. Pearl Seay v. Mayo, 139 Fla. 291 (Fla. 1939)