FORREST MILTON, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE 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 manslaughter, finding the evidence sufficient and no material legal errors. The court specifically addressed the admissibility of eyewitness testimony regarding the speed of a vehicle.
Yes, the evidence justified the conviction for manslaughter. No material errors of law or procedure were found, and eyewitness testimony regarding the vehicle's speed was deemed competent under the circumstances.
“The judgment herein of conviction of manslaughter, charged to have been caused by culpable negligence in operating an automobile' on the streets of a city in this State, is justified by the evidence and no material errors of law or procedure are made to appear by the record”
This quote summarizes the court's finding regarding the sufficiency of evidence and the absence of procedural errors.
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 was convicted of manslaughter, with the charge stemming from culpable negligence in operating an automobile on city streets. Th…
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 Culpable Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
— The judgment herein of conviction of manslaughter, charged to have been caused by culpable negligence in operating an automobile' on the streets of a city in this State, is justified by the evidence and no material errors of law or procedure are made to appear by the record, it being competent for eye-witnesses under the circumstances here shown, to testify as to the speed at which an automobile was being driven on the streets, Sec. 22 C. J. 567-572; Miller v. Jenness, 84 Kansas 608, therefore the judgment should be affirmed. See Hobbs v. State, 83 Fla. 480, 91 South. Rep. 555; Meier v. State, 87 Fla. 133, 99 South. Rep. 124; Denmark v. State, 88 Fla. 244, 102 South. Rep. 246; Shaw v. State, 88 Fla. 320, 102 South. Rep. 550; Cannon v. State, — Fla. —, 107 South. Rep. 360.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur. Brown, C. J., and Ellis, J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hyatt v. State, 294 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Johnston v. State, 29 Fla. 558, 10 So. 686; Camp v. State, 58 Fla. 12, 50 So. 537; Milton v. State, 91 Fla. 989, [*420] 108 So. 886; Horner v. State, Fla.App.1963, 149 So. 2d 863; Hamilton v. State, Fla.App.1963, 152 So. 2d 793; McDougal v. State, Fla.App.1966, 181 So. 2d 539; Scarborough v. State, Fla.App.1966, 188 So. 2d 877; Jones v. State, Fla.App.1967, 1…
Authorities Cited
- Cannon v. State, 107 So. 360 (Fla. 1926)
- Job Shaw v. State, 88 Fla. 320 (Fla. 1924)
- Hobbs v. State, 83 Fla. 480 (Fla. 1922)
- Meier v. State, 87 Fla. 133 (Fla. 1923)
- Denmark v. State, 88 Fla. 244 (Fla. 1924)