CHARLIE LOCK, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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 larceny conviction, holding that it would not disturb a jury's verdict when the evidence presented conflicting testimony and the trial judge approved the verdict by denying a motion for a new trial.
No, the appellate court should not disturb a jury's verdict under such circumstances.
“This was a typical jury case to be determined on the weight and credibility to be given the testimony of the several witnesses.”
Establishes the nature of the case as a factual dispute for the jury.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was convicted of larceny of a heifer. The case involved conflicting testimony from witnesses for the State and the defendant, requiring …
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 Weight And Credibility Of Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant in the court below being convicted of the offense of larceny of a heifer, brings the judgment here for review.
This was a typical jury case to be determined on the weight and credibility to be given the testimony of the sev*575eral witnesses. The jury was simply required to determine whether it would accept as true the testimony given by the witnesses for the State or the testimony given by the witnesses for the defendant. The testimony could not be reconciled on the theory that all witnesses were speaking the truth. The jury resolved the matter adversely to the theory that the testimony in favor of defendant was the truth. The circuit judge approved the verdict 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bowman v. State, 114 Fla. 29 (Fla. 1934)
- Sharp v. Bussey, 129 Fla. 775 (Fla. 1937)
- Jones v. State, 134 Fla. 358 (Fla. 1938)
- Woody Smith v. State, 142 Fla. 468 (Fla. 1940)
- Smith v. State, 129 Fla. 755 (Fla. 1937)