Hamlin v. State
| Decision Date | 10 July 1920 |
| Citation | 85 So. 685,80 Fla. 217 |
| Parties | HAMLIN v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Wakulla County; E. C. Love, Judge.
John Hamlin was convicted of larceny, and he brings error. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
Although there may be conflicts in the evidence, if there is sufficient competent evidence of all the facts legally essential to support a verdict of conviction and there is nothing in the record to indicate that the jury was influenced by any consideration outside the evidence in arriving at the verdict returned, the judgment will not be disturbed by an appellate court on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict.
Evidence examined and found sufficient to support a verdict of conviction.
COUNSEL W. C. Hodges and Greene S. Johnston, Jr., both of Tallahassee, for plaintiff in error.
Van C Swearingen, Atty. Gen., and D. Stuart Gillis, Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.
Plaintiff in error, referred to herein as defendant, was found guilty upon a charge of the larceny of hogs of the value of more than $20. His motion for a new trial was denied. From the judgment imposing sentence of imprisonment upon him, writ of error was taken.
The assignment of errors presents for our consideration only the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. To set out the evidence in extenso would be of no benefit.
According to the state's theory, the hogs alleged to have been stolen by defendant were running at large in Wakulla county near the home of the alleged owner and were in his mark. They disappeared and were found in Jefferson county about two months later in the possession of a third party to whom they had been delivered by defendant on agreement that they would be fattened 'on halves.' They were hauled by defendant in the nighttime to the place where they were delivered in Jefferson county.
A witness on behalf of the state testified that he saw defendant with three hogs 'tied down' in the wodds in Wakulla county; that when defendant and another who was with him, and who was also indicted but acquitted at the trial, left the hogs and went away to get a wagon to haul them, this witness went up and looked at the hogs and saw that they were in the mark of the alleged owner.
There is also evidence to the effect that defendant offered to pay a witness to testify in his behalf at the trial.
The person jointly indicted with defendant and acquitted at the trial denied that he and defendant were in possession of the hogs in the woods in Wakulla county, and denied that he had anything to do with the alleged theft of the hogs, or that he knew anything about it.
The defendant testified that the alleged owner of the hogs was indebted to him and delivered the hogs to him in settlement of the indebtendess; that the hogs were accepted by him for an agreed price, which was $10 more than the account; that the account was marked paid and $10 in cash was paid to the alleged owner; that the hogs after being delivered were openly held by him in a pasture for about 30 days and were then delivered to the party in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
May v. State
...an appellate court to review. Collinsworth v. State, 82 Fla. 291, 89 So. 802; Kirkland v. State, 82 Fla. 119, 89 So. 356; Hamlin v. State, 80 Fla. 217, 85 So. 685; v. State, 79 Fla. 523, 84 So. 384; Wallace v. State, 76 Fla. 175, 79 So. 634; Messer v. State, 75 Fla. 619, 78 So. 680; McCoy v......
-
Studstill v. State
...evidence. Moore v. State (Fla.) 91 So. 180; Collinsworth v. State (Fla.) 89 So. 802; Kirkland v. State (Fla.) 89 So. 356; Hamlin v. State, 80 Fla. 217, 85 So. 685; Brown v. State, 79 Fla. 523, 84 So. 384; v. State, 76 Fla. 175, 79 So. 634; Messer v. State, 75 Fla. 619, 78 So. 680; McCoy v. ......
-
Moore v. State
... ... there is evidence in the record legally sufficient to support ... the verdict, and nothing to indicate that the jury were ... influenced by considerations outside the evidence ... Collinsworth v. State, 82 Fla. ----, 89 So. 802; ... Kirkland v. State (Fla.) 89 So. 356; Hamlin v ... State, 80 Fla. 217, 85 So. 685; Brown v. State, ... 79 Fla. 523, 84 So. 384; Wallace v. State, 76 Fla ... 175, 79 So. 634; Messer v. State, 75 Fla. 619, 78 ... So. 680; McCoy v. State, 75 Fla. 294, 78 So. 168 ... The ... other question is based upon an assignment which ... ...
-
Kirkland v. State
... ... by the jury. Where the evidence is legally sufficient to ... support the verdict, and there is nothing to indicate that ... the jury was influenced by considerations outside [82 Fla ... 121] the evidence, the verdict will be affirmed. Hamlin ... v. State, 85 So. 685; Brown v. State, 79 Fla ... 523, 84 So. 384; Wallace v. State, 76 Fla. 175, 79 ... So. 634; Messer v. State, 75 Fla. 619, 78 So. 680; ... McCoy v. State, 75 Fla. 294, 78 So. 168; Herndon ... v. State, 73 Fla. 451, 74 So. 511; Barrentine v ... State, 72 Fla. 1, 72 ... ...