HAZEL THOMPSON
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 hog, finding the evidence sufficient to support the verdict and no reversible error in the jury instructions.
Yes, the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. No, the trial court did not commit reversible error in its jury instructions.
“The evidence is found to-be somewhat conflicting but is amply sufficient to support the verdict.”
Establishes the court's finding on the sufficiency of the evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHazel Thompson was convicted of larceny of a hog. The evidence presented at trial was described as somewhat conflicting. The trial court provided jury…
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 Instructions cases and more on FLexlaw
Writ of error brings for review judgment of conviction of the offense of larceny of a hog.
Plaintiff in error contends' that the evidence was not sufficient to support conviction. The evidence is found to-be somewhat conflicting but is amply sufficient to support the verdict.
Plaintiff in error also contends that the Court erred in giving certain instructions to the jury. When all the instructions given the jury by the Court are considered together no reversible error is apparent therein.
On the entire record no reversible error is made to appear and, therefore, the judgment is affirmed.
So ordered.
Affirmed.
Terrell, C. J., and Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
*781Justices 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.