HENRY CROFT, ALIAS "IKE" CROFT, AND GEORGE WELDON
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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 unarmed robbery, holding that conflicting evidence presented to the jury was sufficient to sustain the verdict. The court found that resolving such conflicts was within the jury's purview.
No, the evidence was not so indefinite and inconclusive as to warrant reversal. The court found ample credible evidence to sustain the conviction, and the resolution of conflicts in the evidence was a matter for the jury.
“The evidence has been examined and is found to be conflicting and somewhat at variance on some points but defendants were twice found guilty on it and we find no reason to reverse the judgment.”
Establishes the court's finding regarding the evidence and the jury's repeated guilty verdicts.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHenry Croft and George Weldon were charged with armed robbery and automobile larceny. After waiving a jury, they were found guilty of unarmed robbery,…
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 Larceny Of An Automobile cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiffs in error were informed against for armed robbery and the larceny of an automobile. When the cause came on for trial they waived a jury and were found guilty of unarmed robbery. A new trial was granted and on being tried by a jury, they were again found guilty of unarmed robbery and grand larceny, but the court set the verdict aside as to the latter. They were sentenced to serve ten years in the State penitentiary and seek relief from that judgment on appeal.
They contend that a complete alibi was proven and that the evidence is so indefinite and inconclusive that the judgment of conviction should be reversed.
*118The evidence has been examined and is found to be conflicting and somewhat at variance on some points but defendants were twice found guilty on it and we find no reason to reverse the judgment. There is ample credible evidence to sustain the conviction and the matter of resolving doubts and conflicts was one for the Jury.
Affirmed.
Brown, C. J., Chapman and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Williams v. Jones, 326 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 1975)…was not exempt from taxation. To the same effect see Amos v. Jacksonville Realty and Mortgage Co., 77 Fla. 403, 81 So. 524; Orlando Utilities Commission v. Millican [Milligan] (DCA 4 1969), 229 So. 2d 262; State ex rel. Miller v. Doss, 146 Fla. 752, 2 So. 2d 303; State v. Town of North Miami (Fla.1952) 59 So. 2d 779, text 784; Ad [*433] ams v. Housing Authority of City of Daytona Beach (Fla.1952) 60 So. 2d 663 and Hillsborough County Aviation Authority v. Walden, supra [210 So. 2d 193].” The operation of t…
-
Straughn v. Lindley M. Camp, 293 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 1974)…family, it was not exempt from taxation. To the same effect see Amos v. Jacksonville Realty and Mortgage Co., 77 Fla. 403, 81 So. 524; Orlando Utilities Commission v. Millican (DCA 4 1969), 229 So. 2d 262; State ex rel. Miller v. Doss, 146 Fla. 752, 2 So. 2d 303; State v. Town of North Miami (Fla.1952) 59 So. 2d 779, text 784; Adams v. Housing Authority of City of Daytona Beach (Fla.1952) 60 So. 2d 663 and Hillsborough County Aviation Authority v. Walden, supra. It is our view that Chapter 71-133, Laws of…
-
Hillsborough Cnty. Aviation Auth. v. Walden, 210 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 1968)…ty from taxation. E. g., L. Maxcy, Inc. vs. Federal Land Bank [of Columbia], 111 Fla. 116, 150 So. 248 [151 So. 276] (1953); State [ex rel. Burbridge] vs. St. John, 143 Fla. 544, 197 So. 131 (1940); and State [ex rel. Miller] vs. Doss, 146 Fla. 752, 2 So. 2d 303 (1941). Therefore, the special act exempting Aviation Authority property must be construed to afford such exemption only so long as the property is not being used for a predominantly private purpose; and Florida Statute 192.62(2) (c) (1965), F.S.A.…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence