WESLEY (BOY) CORBIN, 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 reversed a conviction for breaking and entering because the only evidence implicating the defendant was a codefendant's extra-judicial confession, which the codefendant repudiated at trial. The court found this insufficient to sustain the conviction.
No, an extra-judicial confession of a codefendant that is repudiated at trial is insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction against the appellant when there is no other evidence implicating the appellant.
“Except for the extra-judicial confession of the codefendant Gainey, there is nothing in the record to implicate the appellant in the crime with which he is charged and of which he was found guilty along with his codefendant.”
Establishes the lack of evidence against the appellant.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was convicted of breaking and entering a service station with intent to commit a felony. The State's case relied heavily on a confession…
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 Accomplice Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
DREW, Justice.
This appellant has appealed from a final judgment sentencing him to three years in prison after a jury verdict of guilty of breaking and entering a certain building of another with intent to commit a felony. He was tried jointly with a codefendant James Gainey. At the trial the State proved that a service station in Cross City was entered and a cash register removed valued at $150, and introduced into evidence an extra-judicial confession of the defendant James Gainey in which he stated that the appellant assisted in the crime. Gainey repudiated this confession at the trial. The appellant at all times when confronted with the accusation of James Gainey denied that-he took part in the crime and testified in denial at the trial.
Except for the extra-judicial confession of the codefendant Gainey, there is nothing in the record to implicate the appellant in the crime with which he is charged and of which he was found guilty along with his codefendant. Under these circumstances argues appellant, the evidence is not sufficient under the law to sustain a conviction. We agree and have,-so held. Stoutamire v. State, 133 Fla. 757, 183 So. 316.
In its brief the State, with commendable candor, concedes that the judgment below must be reversed because the evidence in the record is wholly insufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment.
Reversed.
MATHEWS, C. J., THOMAS, J., and McNEILL, Associate Justice, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
DI Virgilio v. State Rd. Dep't of Fla., 205 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)…iguous aspect of lands for purposes of homestead exemption in Florida has been treated in a manner not inconsistent with the rules herein enunciated. Quigley v. Kennedy & Ely Insurance, Inc., Fla.App.1967, 202 So. 2d 610; Buckels v. Tomer, Fla.1955, 78 So. 2d 861. To place a construction on the statute as suggested by the defendants would be tantamount to an etymological straightjacket thereby emasculating the principle that a landowner, whose lands are trans-versed by easements or fees for drainage distric…
-
Quigley v. Kennedy & ELY Ins., Inc., 202 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…Package Co. v. Houser, 102 Fla. 603, 136 So. 353 (1931). Further, it is clear that a homestead may comprise more than one tract of land when the tracts are contiguous. Coleman v. Williams, 146 Fla. 45, 200 So. 207 (1941); Buckels v. Tomer, Fla.1955, 78 So. 2d 861. We find no Florida case which would indicate that the purchaser must be free of recorded judgments at the time he purchased his homestead or any portion of it.2 The Supreme Court of Florida has, however, often pointed out that great care should be…
-
Davis v. Davis, 864 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…1868 and 1885 homestead provisions, the supreme court consistently concluded that the language limiting the homestead to the “residence and business house of the owner” was inapplicable to homesteads located outside municipalities. Buckels v. Tomer, 78 So. 2d 861 (Fla.1955); Armour & Co. v. Hulvey, 73 Fla. 294, 74 So. 212 (1917); McDougall v. Meginniss, 21 Fla. 362 (1885); accord Fort v. Rigdon, 100 Fla. 398, 129 So. 847 (1930). In construing the 1885 constitution, the supreme court found it significant that…
Authorities Cited
- Stoutamire v. State, 133 Fla. 757 (Fla. 1938)