CARTER BLOODGOOD, 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 reversed a conviction for being an accessory before the fact to larceny, finding that the record lacked sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict.
No, the record did not contain sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict.
“The only assignment of error is that the court erred in failing to grant motion for a new trial. One of the grounds of the motion for new trial was that there was no evidence to support the verdict rendered by the jury.”
This quote establishes the sole basis for the appeal and the core of the defendant's argument.
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 being an accessory before the fact to the larceny of a Ford automobile. The sole assignment of error was the d…
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 Accessory Before The Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
The plaintiff in error was convicted under the third count of an information charging him with the crime of being accessory before the fact of the larceny of a Ford automobile. The only assignment of error is that the court erred in failing to grant motion for a new trial. One of the grounds of the motion for new trial was that there was no evidence to support the verdict rendered by the jury.
It is well settled that where there is substantial.evidence to support the verdict of the jury and there is no showing that the verdict of the jury was influenced by anything outside the evidence, this Court will not reverse the judgment, although the record shows conflicting evidence, and although the jury under all the evidence might reasonably have arrived at some other verdict.
In this case, however, a careful consideration of the record discloses no evidence sufficient to constitute a basis for the verdict rendered. And, therefore, it becomes the duty of this Court to reverse the judgment which was entered against the defendant upon the evidence as shown by the record and it is so ordered.
Eeversed.
Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Strum and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Frank v. State, 121 Fla. 53 (Fla. 1935)…ry. Lee v. State, 96 Fla. 59, 117 So. 699, and cas'es there cited. Where the record discloses no circumstantial evidence which would constitute the basis for a verdict of guilty, a judgment based on such verdict will be reversed. Bloodgood v. State, 94 Fla. 639, 114 So. 528. When the evidence entirely fails to connect a convicted party with the crime of which he was convicted the judgment of conviction should be reversed. Stewart v. State, 58 Fla. 97, 50 So. 642. Essential elements of the crime cannot be…