Brown v. State
| Decision Date | 04 March 1937 |
| Citation | 172 So. 921,127 Fla. 225 |
| Parties | BROWN v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Bradford County; H. L. Sebring, Judge.
Fayete Brown was convicted of larceny of certain cattle, and he brings error.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
COUNSEL Joe Hill Williams, of Lake Butler, for plaintiff in error.
Cary D. Landis, Atty. Gen., and Roy Campbell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The writ of error brings for review conviction of the offense of larceny of certain cattle described as 'four cows marked crop split under bit in one ear, swallow fork in other ear, and branded JE, a better and more particular description of said four cows being to affiant unknown.'
The State relied in part upon circumstantial evidence for a conviction of the accused in this case. Without the circumstantial evidence, there was not sufficient direct evidence upon which to base a conviction. The circumstantial evidence adduced to supplement the direct evidence did not meet the rule that when circumstantial evidence is relied on for a conviction the circumstances proved must be so strong and cogent as to exclude every reasonable hypothesis except the defendant's guilt. All of the circumstances relied upon to supply the deficiency of direct evidence could have been true and yet the accused could have, under a reasonable hypothesis, been innocent of the offense charged. These enunciations are so elementary that it requires no citation of authorities to support either of them.
For the reasons stated, the judgment should be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
It is so ordered. Reversed and remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holland v. State
...Coast Line R. Co. v. Beazley, 54 Fla. 311, 45 So. 761; Cross v. Aby 45 So. 820 (decided here at this term).' We have examined Brown v. State (Fla.) 172 So. 921, emphasized by counsel for plaintiff in error, but it fails throw light upon the case at bar. We hold that substantial justice was ......
-
Williams v. State
... ... State, 99 Fla. 1216, 128 So. 486; Kennedy v ... State, 31 Fla. 428, 12 So. 858; Gantling v ... State, 40 Fla. 237, 23 So. 857; Pate v. State, ... 73 Fla. 97, 73 So. 517; Whetston v. State, 31 Fla ... 240, 12 So. 661. Also see Solomon v. State, 115 Fla ... 310, 156 So. 401; Brown v. State, 127 Fla. 225, 172 ... So. 921; Dewey v. State, 135 Fla. 443, 186 So. 224; ... Free v. State, 142 Fla. 233, 194 So. 639; Savage ... v. State, 152 Fla. 367, 11 So.2d 778 ... The evidence as to ... the guilt of A. C. Carlton and Dan Stocks fails to meet the ... test of ... ...
-
Savage v. State
... ... entirely circumstantial, the law requires that such evidence, ... as a whole, must be so strong, cogent, and convincing as to ... exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of the ... defendant's guilt. See Solomon [152 Fla. 375] ... v. State, 115 Fla. 310, 156 So. 401; Brown v ... State, 127 Fla. 225, 172 So. 921; Free v ... State, 142 Fla. 233, 194 So. 639 ... The decisions of ... this Court hold that in order to sustain a conviction in a ... criminal case for the negligent operation of an automobile on ... a highway, the evidence adduced to support ... ...
-
D. J. v. State, 74--800 and 74--724
...the accused's guilt, inconsistent with innocence and must exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt.' Brown v. State, 1937, 127 Fla. 225, 172 So. 921; Miller v. State, Fla.App.1972, 270 So.2d 423, 424; Gaetano v. State, Fla.App.1973, 273 So.2d 84, 86; Whitehead v. State, Fla.......