T. B. PLATT
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 conviction for larceny of a cow, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on the defendant's motions for continuance, directed verdict, and new trial, nor in the refusal to charge the jury on alibi.
The trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motions for a continuance, directed verdict, or new trial. The court also did not err in refusing to charge the jury on the law of alibi.
“The motion for continuance was entirely insufficient to meet the requirements of the law as to such motions”
Reasoning for denying the motion for continuance.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was convicted of larceny of a cow. He appealed, raising several issues including the denial of his motions for a continuance, a directed…
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 Sufficiency Of Evidence For Conviction cases and more on FLexlaw
— To a judgment of a conviction of the larceny of a cow, writ of error was sued out.
Plaintiff in error poses four questions for our consideration, as follows:
1. “Did the lower court err in denying defendants motion for a continuance?”
2. “Did the court err in denying defendants motion for a directed verdict at the close of the State’s evidence?”
*8513. “Did the court err in denying defendant’s motion for a new trial?”
4. “Did the court err in refusing to charge the law of alibi after the defendant .requested same and the only testimony given by the defendant for a defense was an alibi?”
The motion for continuance was entirely insufficient to meet the requirements of the law as to such motions as held in Moore v. State, 59 Fla. 23, 52 Sou. 971; Brown v. State, 92 Fla. 699, 109 Sou. 811.
Question No. 2 is without merit, as the evidence was amply sufficient to support conviction.
No reversible error is shown to have occurred in denying the motion for new trial.
There was no basis in the record upon which we can hold the trial court in error because of the failure to charge the jury on the law of alibi.
On examination of the entire record we find no reversible record.
Judgment affirmed.
So ordered.
Terrell, C. J., and Buford, and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Brown and- Chapman not participating as authorized, by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927 and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Moore v. State, 59 Fla. 23 (Fla. 1910)
- Browne v. State, 92 Fla. 699 (Fla. 1926)