EMANUEL ALLDAY
v.
STATE
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 second-degree murder conviction, holding that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict. The court deferred to the jury's factual findings and the trial court's decision not to grant a new trial.
Yes, the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict. The court found no reason to substitute its judgment for that of the jury, which had resolved the factual questions against the defendant.
“The only point raised by the assignments of error which appears to have merit is the question of whether or not the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment.”
Identifies the primary legal issue on appeal.
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 indicted for murder in the second degree and subsequently convicted of that offense. The sole issue on appeal concerned 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 Appellate Review Of Jury Verdicts cases and more on FLexlaw
In this case the plaintiff in error was indicted charged with the offense of murder in the second degree and was convicted of that offense.
The only point raised by the assignments of error which appears to have merit is the question of whether or not the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment.
The defendant in the court below, plaintiff in error here, *503was either guilty as charged, or else the homicide was a justifiable one under the law.
He had the benefit of correct charges given by the court as to the law applicable to the case and under these charges the jury resolved the questions of fact against the defendant. We cannot substitute our judgment for that of a jury which is not shown to have been influenced by any matter outside of the record. The trial court heard the evidence as the jury did and declined to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial.
The judgment must, therefore, be affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Davis, C. J., and Terrell, J., concur in the opinion and judgment.