MORRIS EDWARDS AND J. W. CORBIN
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 court held that the evidence, including the co-defendants' confession read in the appellants' presence and their subsequent silence, was sufficient to sustain the conviction for grand larceny.
Appellants were charged with grand larceny along with two women who confessed. The women's confession was read in the appellants' presence, and they r…
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 Admissibility Of Confessions cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is from a conviction of grand larceny. The only question is whether the evidence is sufficient.
The two appellants and two women were charged with grand larceny. The women signed a full confession which was read in the presence of appellants, the two women, the sheriff and others. Appellants remained silent. Thus the confession became admissible in evidence against the appellants. See Autrey v. State, 94 Fla. 229, 114 So. 244; Handley v. State, 125 Fla. 632, 170 So. 748.
The women did not testify. The appellants testified but disclaimed guilt and explained their silence by saying they paid no attention to the reading of the confession. It is true the confession standing alone would not sustain the verdict of the jury, but, here the appellants knew the victim was intoxicated; they had reason to believe he had a substantial amount of money; that he was a stranger and their chances of getting away with the money without being apprehended were good.
The jury had all the circumstances before them. The trial was conducted according to law. We affirm the judg*551ment upon authority of Autrey v. State and Handley v. State, supra.
Affirmed.
CHAPMAN, C. J. TERRELL and BUFORD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jones v. State, 200 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…ed, constituted reversible error. Under Florida decisions that testimony was admissible. Roberts v. State, 94 Fla. 149, 113 So. 726; Autrey v. State, 94 Fla. 229, 114 So. 244, 245; Handley v. State, 125 Fla. 632, 170 So. 748, 753; Edwards v. State, 155 Fla. 550, 20 So. 2d 916; Albano v. State, Fla.1956, 89 So. 2d 342, 344. In Albano v. State, supra, the Supreme Court of Florida said: “ * * * this court has committed itself to the rule that when one in custody accused of a crime has full liberty to speak…
-
Brown v. State, 367 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 1979)…. See Comment, The Uncertain Relationship Between the Hearsay Rule and the Confrontation Clause, 52 Tex.E.Rev. 1167, 1181-93 (1974). . See, e. g., Albano v. State, 89 So. 2d 342 (Fla.1956); Kemp v. State, 48 So. 2d 756 (Fla.1950); Edwards v. State, 155 Fla. 550, 20 So. 2d 916 (1945); Autrey v. State, 94 Fla. 229, 114 So. 244 (1927); Roberts v. State, 94 Fla. 149, 113 So. 726 (1927); Mumford v. State, 70 Fla. 424, 70 So. 399 (1915); Sumpter v. State, 45 Fla. 106, 33 So. 981 (1903). Additionally, this Court…
-
Phillips v. State, 177 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)…ted to by him, the statement and the fact of his failure to deny any connection therewith may be considered as evidence of his acquiescence in or admission of the facts stated as truth. See: Kemp v. State, 48 So. 2d 756 (Fla.1950); Edwards v. State, 155 Fla. 550, 20 So. 2d 916 (1945); Handley v. State, 125 Fla. 632, 170 So. 748 (1936); Autrey v. State, 94 Fla. 229, 114 So. 244 (1927); Roberts v. State, 94 Fla. 149, 113 So. 726 (1927); Mumford v. State, 70 Fla. 424, 70 So. 399 (1915); and Sumpter v. State, 4…
Authorities Cited
- Autrey v. State, 94 Fla. 229 (Fla. 1927)
- Handley v. State, 125 Fla. 632 (Fla. 1936)