C. V. MARTIN AND BILL MARTIN
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 judgment against the defendants, holding that the jury was within its rights to believe eyewitness testimony despite potential conflicts. The court found sufficient evidence to support the verdict, and no reversible error was identified.
Yes, there was ample evidence to support the judgment, as the jury was entitled to believe the positive testimony of three eyewitnesses.
“To say who is and who is not speaking the truth when there is conflict between the statements of witnesses is a question for the jury to determine and as to which the Court (either trial or appellate) may not substitute its view for that of the jury.”
Establishes the principle that the jury, not the court, is the arbiter of witness credibility in cases of conflicting testimony.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendants were convicted of arson. Three witnesses testified positively that they saw the defendants set fire to the property in question at 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 Jury Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
The only question presented by plaintiffs in error challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict.
To say who is and who is not speaking the truth when there is conflict between the statements of witnesses is a question for the jury to determine and as to which the Court (either trial or appellate) may not substitute its view for that of the jury.
Three persons testified'positively that they each saw the defendants set fire to the property at the time and place it was alleged to have been burned by the defendants. So there is disclosed by the record ample evidence to support the judgment.
The entire record discloses no reversible error; so the judgment is affirmed.
So ordered.
Affirmed.
Ellis, C. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment..
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bass v. State, 172 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)…in the record to sustain and justify the Jury’s verdict. This Court, sitting as a reviewing tribunal, cannot substitute its judgment for that of the Jury as to the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence. Martin et al. v. State, 134 Fla. 174, 183 So. 634; Land v. State, Fla., 59 So. 2d 370. The appellant, in both cases, argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict of the Jury. For the reasons stated above, we find this contention to be without merit. The Appellant…
-
M.P.W. v. State, 702 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…ony, if believed by the trier of fact, is sufficient for a conviction. The trier of fact determines who speaks the truth, and it is not appropriate for an appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the trier of fact. See Martin v. State, 134 Fla. 174, 183 So. 634 (1938). It is also the function of the trier of fact to draw or refuse to draw inferences from the evidence, and its determination should be afforded great weight. See Ford v. State, 251 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). Where there are di…