Adams v. State
| Decision Date | 23 May 1939 |
| Citation | 138 Fla. 206,189 So. 392 |
| Parties | ADAMS v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied June 15, 1939.
En Banc.
Error to Circuit Court, Citrus County; Fred L. Stringer, Judge.
Lovic Adams was convicted for buying, receiving, and aiding in the concealment of stolen property, with knowledge that the property was stolen, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
COUNSEL Carroll M. Bourland, of Tampa, and H. H. Wells and James Messer, Jr., both of Tallahassee, for plaintiff in error.
George Couper Gibbs, Atty. Gen., and Tyrus A. Norwood and Thomas J. Ellis, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.
The plaintiff in error, Lovic Adams, and Geo. O. Dawson and Will Aldridge were informed against in Count 1 of an information charging them on the 8th day of September, 1936, with the larceny of one lot of railroad rails of the value of $75, the property of the Receivers of the Seaboard Air Line Railway Company, a corporation. Count 2 of the information charged Will Aldridge, on the 8th day of September, 1936, with the larceny of the property described in Count 1 of the information. Count 3 of the information charged Geo. O Dawson and Lovic Adams, on the 8th day of September, 1936 with buying, receiving and aiding in the concealment of stolen property, well knowing the same was stolen, viz.: one lot of railroad rails of the value of $75 and property of the Receivers of the Seaboard Air Line Railway Company, a corporation.
On the 23rd day of November, 1936, Lovic Adams, the plaintiff in error, was found guilty under the 3rd Count of the information. He presented, or caused to be presented, his motion for a new trial, and upon consideration thereof the trial Court entered an order overruling and denying the same. The said Lovic Adams was by the trial court sentenced to serve a period of two years in the State Prison at hard labor, and from said judgment an appeal has been perfected to this Court and a number of assignments argued for a reversal thereof.
One of the first assignments presented is that during the progress of the trial in the lower court, counsel for Plaintiff in error presented a motion requesting that the trial court enter an order requiring or directing the State Attorney to elect between Counts 1 and 3 of the information upon which the State of Florida would rely for a conviction. The trial court overruled and denied the motion upon the theory, no doubt, that the larceny of the railroad rails, and the receiving and aiding in the concealment of the same property on the same date as described in Counts 1 and 3 of the information related to the same transaction and were properly joined and that the order so made was within the sound judicial discretion of the trial court. We find no error in this ruling. See Mayers v. State, 126 Fla 640, 171 So. 824; Branch v. State, 76 Fla. 558, 80 So. 482; Presley v. State, 61 Fla. 46, 54 So. 367; Gantling v. State, 40 Fla. 237, 23 So. 857; Eggart v. State, 40 Fla. 527, 25 So. 144. Counsel for plaintiff in error relied upon Carlton v. State, 108 Fla. 34, 145 So. 249; Griswold v. State, 77 Fla. 505, 82 So. 44. It will be observed that Counts 1 and 3, supra, are not repugnant or inconsistent like the informations appearing in the cases cited by counsel supra.
In support of the motion for a new trial are affidavits of jurors C.J. Brown, Percy L. King, H. L. Giddens, and John Humphreys, Jr., sitting upon the trial of the defendant in the lower court. The affidavits recite the reason for filing the verdict in the lower court--these were obtained by counsel for plaintiff in error after the adjournment of Court. We are at a loss to appreciate the merits or materiality of these affidavits. The lower court disregarded the same when considering...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Andreasen v. State
...that there was sufficient evidence upon which a jury could find the defendant guilty is supported by the record. See Adams v. State, 138 Fla. 206, 189 So. 392 (1939). Further, the defendant's false exculpatory statements, when considered as substantive evidence, as is permitted, see, e.g., ......
-
Lynch v. State
...should not be determined on a motion for judgment of acquittal. Holland v. State, 129 Fla. 363, 176 So. 169 (1937); Adams v. State, 138 Fla. 206, 189 So. 392 (1939); Sheehan v. Allred, 146 So.2d 760 (Fla.App.1st, Budgen v. Brady, 103 So.2d 672 (Fla.App.1st, 1958). There is evidence in the r......
-
Garmise v. State, 74--1134
...of guilty. Shifrin v. State, Fla.App.1968, 210 So.2d 18. See also, Holland v. State, 1937, 129 Fla. 363, 176 So. 169; Adams v. State, 1939, 138 Fla. 206, 189 So. 392. We find that there was substantial and sufficient competent evidence presented to support the denial by the trial court of t......
-
Johnson v. State, Z--332
...concur. 1 Tidwell v. State, 143 Fla. 397, 196 So. 837 (1940); see Pearce v. State, 143 Fla. 347, 196 So. 685 (1940). Adams v. State, 138 Fla. 206, 189 So. 392 (1939), is not necessarily to the contrary. The unanimous Supreme Court held that the counts of larceny and of receiving stolen prop......