ARRA BROWN, 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 judgment, holding that when the sole issue on appeal is the sufficiency of evidence for a jury verdict, and there is substantial competent evidence supporting the verdict without indication of outside influence, the judgment will not be reversed.
Yes, the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict because there was substantial competent evidence, and no indication the jury was improperly influenced.
“Where the only question presented on writ of error from the court is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, and it appears from the record that there is sufficient legally competent evidence to support the verdict, and there is nothing to indicate that the jury was influenced by considerations outside the evidence, the judgment will not be reversed.”
This quote establishes the legal standard for reviewing the sufficiency of evidence supporting a jury verdict on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff in error appealed a judgment, claiming the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdict. The appellate court reviewed the rec…
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 Competent Substantial Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Browne, C. J.
The only question presented in this case is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict.
No useful purpose would be served to recite any of the evidence, or attempt to analyze it.
There was conflict in the testimony, but this was settled by the jury, and' there was substantial competent evidence to support the verdict. “Where the only question presented on writ of error from the court is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, and it appears from the record that there is sufficient legally competent evidence to support the verdict, and there is nothing to indicate that the jury was influenced by considerations outside the evidence, the judgment will not be reversed.” Howard v. State, 83 South. Rep. 87. ,
The judgment is affirmed.
Taylor, Whitfield, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
May v. State, 89 Fla. 78 (Fla. 1925)…by them, is not proper, under our system, for an appellate court to review. Collinsworth v. State, 82 Fla. 291, 89 South. Rep. 802; Kirkland v. State, 82 Fla. 119, 89 South. Rep. 356; Hamlin v. State, 80 Fla. 217, 85 South. Rep. 685; Brown v. State, 79 Fla. 523, 84 South. Rep. 384; Wallace v. State, 76 Fla. 175, 79 South. Rep. 634; Messer v. State, 75 Fla. 619, 78 South. Rep. 680; McCoy v. State, 75 Fla. 294, 78 South. Rep. 168. The time allowed by the court for argument was limited to twenty minutes. Err…
-
Collinsworth v. State, 82 Fla. 291 (Fla. 1921)…nced by considerations outside this evidence. Under the well established rule where this is the case the judgment will be affirmed. Kirkland v. State, 82 Fla. 119, 89 South. Rep. 356; Hamlin v. State, 80 Fla. 217, 85 South. Rep. 685; Brown v. State, 79 Fla. 523, 84 South. Rep. 384; Wallace v. State, 76 Fla. 175, 79 South. Rep. 634; Messer v. State, 75 Fla. 619, 78 South. Rep. 680; McCoy v. State, 75 Fla. 294, 78 South. Rep. 168. Affirmed. Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield and Ellis, J. J., concur.…
-
Moore v. State, 83 Fla. 270 (Fla. 1922)…icate that the jury were influenced by considerations outside the evidence. Collinsworth v. State, 82 Fla. 291, 89 South. Rep. 802; Kirkland v. State, 82 Fla. 118, 89 South. Rep. 356; Hamlin v. State, 80 Fla. 217, 85 South. Rep. 685; Brown v. State, 79 Fla. 523, 84 South. Rep. 384; Wallace v. State, 76 Fla. 175, 79 South. Rep. 634; Messer v. State, 75 Fla. 619, 78 South. Rep. 680; McCoy v. State, 75 Fla. 294, 78 South. Rep. 168. The other question is based upon an assignment which questions the ruling of…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Howard v. State, 78 Fla. 388 (Fla. 1919)