Knight v. State
| Decision Date | 01 November 1910 |
| Citation | 60 Fla. 19,53 So. 541 |
| Parties | KNIGHT v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Clay County; R. M. Call, Judge.
William Knight was convicted of arson, and he brings error. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
A conviction may be had upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, where it satisfies the jury of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The credibility and weight of testimony are for the determination of the jury in a criminal prosecution.
Where there is evidence to support a verdict, and there is nothing in the record to indicate that the jury were not governed by the evidence at the trial, the verdict will not be set aside as being against the evidence.
In a prosecution for willfully and maliciously burning a dwelling house, where the evidence shows the building burned was used as a dwelling house as alleged, it is not error to confine the issues to the charge made under the statute.
The following charge is not erroneous, when there is evidence upon which it may be predicated:
It is not error to merely fail to define reasonable doubt to the jury, when there is no request for it.
COUNSEL F. W. Pope, for plaintiff in error.
Park Trammell, Atty. Gen., for the State.
William Knight was convicted of arson in the circuit court for Clay county, and took writ of error.
The indictment charges that the defendant '* * * did willfully and maliciously set fire to and burn a certain building, to wit, a barn, * * * adjoining the dwelling house of one George Hagans there situate, and by the kindling of said fire and the burning of said building the said dwelling house of the said George Hagans was then and there willfully and maliciously burned and consumed.'
The statute is as follows: 'Whoever willfully and maliciously burns the dwelling house or any building adjoining such dwelling house, by the burning whereof such dwelling house is burnt, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life, or for such term as the court may direct.' Gen St. 1906, § 3273.
It is shown in evidence that the building was used as a dwelling house as alleged, and the court properly limited the consideration to the charge as made under the quoted statute. Hicks v. State, 43 Fla. 171, 29 So. 631.
A conviction may be had upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, where it satisfies the jury of the defendant's guilt beyond a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holland v. State
...combustible material. The evidence is ample to sustain the finding of the jury. In the suit of Knight v. State, 60 Fla. 19, text page 21, 53 So. 541, this court 'There is evidence to support the verdict, and, as there is nothing in the record to indicate that the jury were not governed by t......
-
Archer v. State, 83258
...is instructed on this standard but not given a definition of the term. See Barwicks v. State, 82 So.2d 356 (Fla.1955); Knight v. State, 60 Fla. 19, 53 So. 541 (1910); accord Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1, 114 S.Ct. 1239, 1243, 127 L.Ed.2d 583 (1994) (stating that a trial court must instruc......
-
Moore v. State
...uncorroborated evidence is sufficient to support a conviction if it satisfies the jury of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Knight v. State, 60 Fla. 19, 53 So. 541; v. State, 42 Fla. 184, 27 So. 869. In addition to this, there was evidence of a number of corroborating circumstances. No benef......
-
Chastain v. State
...under the laws of Florida such conflicts are disputes in evidence and are to be considered and settled by the jury. In the case of Knight v. State, 60 Fla. 19, text page 21, 53 541, this court said: 'There is evidence to support the verdict, and, as there is nothing in the record to indicat......