IVY REYNOLDS, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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 receiving stolen property, holding that any errors related to the search warrant and affidavit were harmless due to sufficient independent evidence.
The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to quash the search warrant and information. Furthermore, the exclusion of the search warrant and affidavit was not reversible error because other ample evidence supported the conviction.
“Plaintiff in Error was convicted in the Criminal Court of Record of Polk County on the second count of an information charging that he did unlawfully receive and aid in the concealment of stolen property.”
Describes the conviction that is being appealed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff in error was convicted of receiving and concealing stolen property. He appealed, arguing the trial court erred by refusing to quash the …
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 Concealing Stolen Property cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff in Error was convicted in the Criminal Court of Record of Polk County on the second count of an information charging that he did unlawfully receive and aid in the concealment of stolen property. He seeks reversal of the judgment below because the trial court refused to quash the search warrant and the information, and because of the alleged insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict and because of certain in*1510structions given to the jury, and the legal insufficiency of the' judgment, and because the plaintiff in error was not permitted to offer in evidence the search warrant and affidavit on which the same was based.
Plaintiff in error was tried on an information, the allegations of which were amply supported by the evidence. The affidavit and search warrant being merely for evidential purposes and other evidence. being ample to support the charge, they became immaterial and refusal to have them placed in evidence could not have harmed the plaintiff in error. Other assignments have been examined and we fail to find any support for them in the record.
Affirmed.
Terrell, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Strum, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.