Breen v. State

• Court: Florida Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM.
• Citation: Breen v. State, 84 Fla. 518, 94 So. 383 (Fla. 1922)
• Decision Date: 10 November 1922
• Parties: BREEN v. STATE.

94 So. 383

84 Fla. 518

BREEN v. STATE.

Florida Supreme Court

November 10, 1922

Error to Circuit Court, Dade County; H. Pierre Branning, Judge.

Charles H. Breen was convicted of murder in the second degree, and he brings error.

Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Unless errors of trial court injuriously affect substantial rights of complaining party, judgment not disturbed. No material or harmful errors of law or procedure being made to appear in the record of the trial, the judgment herein of conviction of murder in the second degree in affirmed.

Judgment not reversed or new trial granted on ground that verdict not sustained by evidence, unless clearly wrong. A judgment should not be reversed or a new trial granted on the ground that the verdict is not sustained by the evidence, unless it appears that there is no substantial evidence to support the finding, or that, upon the whole evidence, the verdict is clearly wrong, or that the jury were not governed by the evidence in making their findings.

COUNSEL G. A. Worley & Son, of Miami, for plaintiff in error.

Rivers Buford, Atty. Gen., and Marvin C. McIntosh, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

On the authority of Ford v. State, 44 Fla. 421, 33 So. 301; Davis v. State, 46 Fla. 137, 35 So. 76, as to the plea in abatement, and of Gee v. State, 61 Fla. 22 54 So. 458; Goff v. State, 60 Fla. 13, 53 So. 327; Owens v. State, 65 Fla. 483, 62 So. 651; Pittman v. State, 82 Fla. 24, 89 So. 336; Dixon v State, 79 Fla. 586, 84 So. 541; Johnson v State, 80 Fla. 61, 85 So. 155; Reeves v. State, 68 Fla. 96, 66 So. 432; Lewis v. State (Fla.) 94 So. 154; and Shuler v. State (Fla.) 93 So. 672, decided at this term, and other similar decisions as to harmless errors of procedure, the judgment of conviction herein should be affirmed.

At the trial the mental and legal responsibility of the defendant for the homicide was fully investigated. No harmful errors appear in the rulings on the evidence adduced or in the charges given. The evidence is amply sufficient to sustain the verdict of murder in the second degree, and the judgment of conviction rendered upon the verdict was proper.

The judgment should not be reversed or a new trial granted in any case, civil or criminal, for errors in rulings upon the admission or rejection of evidence, or for errors in giving or refusing charges, or for errors in any other matter of procedure or practice, unless it shall appear to the court from a consideration of the entire cause that such...