OLLINGER BAGGETT, 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 reversed a conviction for arson, holding that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the trial court erred in denying the motion for a new trial.
No, the evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Yes, the trial court erred in denying the motion for a new trial.
“Suffice it to say that a careful study of the testimony convinces us that it contains no proof of guilt.”
Establishes the court's finding regarding the insufficiency of evidence.
Previewing 1 of 5 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff in error, an eighteen-year-old, was convicted of arson along with three other defendants. While two co-defendants were granted a new tri…
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 Arson cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
Plaintiff in error was convicted of arson and sentenced to four years in the State Prison. There' were four defendants jointly indicted. All were convicted, but a new trial was granted to two. The only assignment of error insisted upon is based upon the denial of the motion for a new trial as to plaintiff in error. We cannot see that it would serve any useful purpose to discuss the testimony, which was very meager, vague and unsatisfactory. Suffice it to say that a careful study of the testimony convinces us that it contains no proof of guilt. While the evidence raises a suspicion that plaintiff in error may have been guilty, it amounts to no more. The law presumes that he was innocent, and the burden was upon the State to overcome this presumption by introducing evidence showing his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In our opinion this was not done. The jury must have based its verdict on something outside of the evidence. Our conclusion is that this youth of eighteen should not be sent to the penitentiary on the testimony adduced, and that the learned trial judge erred in denying the motion for new trial.
Reversed.
Ellis, C. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur. Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rivers v. State, 140 Fla. 487 (Fla. 1939)…crime is innocent, and the presumption of innocence follows a defendant charged with crime through each step in the trial until the presumption is overcome by evidence showing the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. See Baggett v. State, 94 Fla. 252, 114 So. 236; Roe v. State, 96 Fla. 723, 119 So. 118; Campbell v. State, 92 Fla. 775, 109 So. 809; Varnley v. State, 82 Fla. 282, 89 So. 808; Vickery v. State, 50 Fla. 144, 38 So. 907; McNair v. State, 61 Fla. 35, 55 So. 401. We have carefully read…
-
Cordell v. State, 157 Fla. 295 (Fla. 1946)…of an accused arising from a consideration of all the evidence adduced during the prqgress of the trial or the lack of such evidence, then a conviction under such conditions and circumstances as a matter of law cannot be sustained. Baggett v. State, 94 Fla. 252, 114 So. 236. The record discloses conflicts and disputes as to the ownership of one black and white spotted Poland-China boar hog, which at the time of the trial was in a truck near the court house and was the subject of of a replevin suit (not th…