Driggers v. State

• Decision Date: 09 October 1925
• Citation: Driggers v. State, 90 Fla. 324, 105 So. 841 (Fla. 1925)
• Parties: DRIGGERS v. STATE.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

105 So. 841

90 Fla. 324

DRIGGERS v. STATE.

Florida Supreme Court, Division B.

October 9, 1925

Error to Circuit Court, Dixie County; M. F. Horne, Judge.

George Driggers was convicted of fraudulently altering the marks of an animal with intent to claim it, and he brings error.

Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Conviction for fraudulently altering marks of animal affirmed, in absence of error. No naterial or harmful error of law or procedure being made to appear in the record of the trial and there being evidence legally sufficient to sustain the verdict, the judgment herein of conviction of the statutory offense of fraudulently altering the marks of an animal with intent to claim the same is affirmed.

The points decided in the case of Hart v. State (Fla.) 103 So. 633, are stated in the headnotes.

Errors in giving or refusing instructions and admission or rejection of testimony not reaching legality of trial not ground for reversal. Alleged errors in giving or refusing charges or instructions, and in the admission or rejection of testimony which do not weaken the effect of the admitted testimony, and which do not reach the legality of the trial itself, will not be considered grounds for reversal, where the evidence leaves no room for reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt.

Errors in admission of or rejection of evidence in giving or refusing charges or procedure not ground for reversal, unless they injuriously affect substantial rights; judgment not reversed because verdict is not sustained by evidence unless clearly wrong. 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 errors injuriously affect the substantial rights of the complaining party. Nor should a judgment be reversed or a new trial granted on the ground that the verdict is not sustained by the evidence, unless it appears that there was 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 finding.

COUNSEL

W. P. Chavous, of Cross City, for plaintiff in error.

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

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

The conviction herein of the statutory offense of fraudulently altering the marks of an animal with intent to claim same (section 5176, Rev. Gen. Stats. 1920) is in accord with controlling rules of law as to the charges given. See Atzroth v. State, 10 Fla. 207; Williams v State, 40 Fla. 480, text 483, 25 So. 143, 74 Am. St Rep. 154; as to charges refused being covered by charges given, Groover v. State, 82 Fla. 427, 90 So. 473, 26 A. L. R. 375; as to admission of objectionable evidence where it is in substance otherwise admitted in evidence, Mercer v. State, 83 Fla. 555, 92 So. 535; as to general objections to evidence, Flores v. State, 72 Fla. 302, 73 So. 234, L. R. A. 1917B, 1143; as to evidence of other independent acts tending to show intent, Wallace v. State, 41 Fla. 547, 26 So. 713; as to evidence obtained on arrest, State ex rel. Stillman v. Merritt, 86 Fla. 164, 99 So. 230.

The evidence is legally sufficient to sustain the verdict, and no material errors appear. See Shuler v. State, 84 Fla. 414, 93 So. 672.

The points decided in Hart v. State (Fla.) 103 So. 633, appear in the headnotes.

Alleged errors in giving or refusing charges or instructions, and in the admission or rejection of testimony which do not weaken the effect of the admitted testimony, and...