JOHN FRANK THORNTON
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.
John Frank Thornton challenges his conviction for armed robbery under Florida law. The Florida Supreme Court affirms his conviction, rejecting claims regarding jury instructions, prosecutorial reference to defendants as convicts, and sufficiency of evidence.
The trial court did not err on any of the three issues. The jury charge was entirely sufficient; reference to the defendants as convicts was proper because their status as escaping convicts was part of the res gestae; and the evidence was amply sufficient to sustain the verdict.
“the plaintiff in error, defendant in the court below, and two others who were on trial charged with the offense while making their escape from a road camp in which they were confined and working as convicts”
Establishes the facts that the defendants' status as escaping convicts was relevant to the charges
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThornton and two others were on trial for armed robbery. They were escaping convicts who made their escape from a road camp where they were confined 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 Res Gestae cases and more on FLexlaw
On writ of error the judgment of conviction of the offense commonly known as armed robbery denounced by Section 5055 R. G. S., 7157 C. G. L., plaintiff in error presents three (3) questions for our consideration, which are as follows:
“1. Did the court charge the jury as to the gist of the crime charged in the information?”
“2. “Did the court err in allowing the State Attorney *444to repeatedly refer to the defendants as convicts and fellow convicts ?”
“3. “Is the evidence against John Frank Thornton sufficient to sustain the conviction?”
As to the first question, the charge of the court was entirely sufficient. No special instructions were requested and no reversible error was committed. There was no motion for a new trial and, therefore, no objections to the charges were presented in the court below. See Spanish, et al., v. State, 72 Fla. 420, 73 So. 230; Williams v. State, 32 Fla. 251, 13 So. 429; Bynum v. State, 46 Fla. 142, 35 So. 65; Patrick v. State, 136 Fla. 853, 187 So. 383; Green v. State, 121 Fla. 307, 163 So. 712.
The contention presented by the second question is untenable because the record shows that the plaintiff in error, defendant in the court below, and two others who were on trial charged with the offense while making their escape from a road camp in which they were confined and working as convicts. The fact that they were escaping convicts was a part of the res gestae.
The record discloses no objection made to the reference by the State Attorney and no exception taken to such statements. No reversible error is made to appear in this regard.
The third question challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. As stated, supra, there was no motion for new trial and, therefore, the question is not so presented that this Court must consider it but, in fairness to the plaintiff in error, we have considered the evidence and found it amply sufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment.
The judgment should be affirmed and it is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Terrell, C. J., and Thomas, J., concur.
*445Wi-iitfield, P. J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Brown and Ci-iapman not participating 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
-
Wright v. State, 216 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)…e trial Court, the appellate Court “is precluded from considering the sufficiency of the evidence”, to use the language of Smith. There are other cases to like effect. See Gilbert v. State, 1941, 148 Fla. 293, 4 So. 2d 330; Thornton v. State, 1940, 143 Fla. 443, 196 So. 842; Baxley v. State, 1916, 72 Fla. 228, 72 So. 677, all from the Supreme Court. And in Johnson v. State, 1907, 53 Fla. 42, 43 So. 430, the Supreme Court, speaking through Justice Taylor, gives an interesting dissertation upon the [*231] re…
-
Hogwood v. State, 175 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…v. Thompson, 16 Fla. 69, 73 (1877); Davis v. State, 47 Fla. 26, 36 So. 170 (1904); Johnson v. State, 53 Fla. 42, 43 So. 430 (1907); Gilbert v. State, 58 Fla. 50, 50 So. 535 (1909); Baxley v. State, 72 Fla. 228, 72 So. 677 (1916); Thornton v. State, 143 Fla. 443, 196 So. 842 (1940); Gilbert v. State, 148 Fla. 293, 4 So. 2d 330 (1941). I know of no reason for this court to rule in conflict with those decisions. This is not a case where the record reveals that the evidence was patently insufficient to suppor…1 / 3
-
Turner v. State, 212 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)…the court reporter, transcribed by him, and filed in the cause.” (Emphasis supplied). The quoted provision is procedurally mandatory and has uniformly been given effect. Simmons v. State, 1942, 151 Fla. 778, 10 So. 2d 436; Thornton v. State, 1940, 143 Fla. 443, 196 So. 842; Febre v. State, 1947, 158 Fla. 853, 30 So. 2d 367; Townsend v. State, Fla.App. 1957, 97 So. 2d 712; Miller v. State, Fla.App.1958, 102 So. 2d 737; Williams v. State, Fla.App.1959, 109 So. 2d 379; Bell v. State, Fla.App.1965, 178 So. 2d…
Authorities Cited
- Green v. State, 121 Fla. 307 (Fla. 1935)
- Bynum v. State, 46 Fla. 142 (Fla. 1903)
- Spanish v. State, 72 Fla. 420 (Fla. 1916)
- Williams v. State, 32 Fla. 251 (Fla. 1893)
- Patrick v. State, 136 Fla. 853 (Fla. 1939)