Logan v. State
| Decision Date | 26 October 1909 |
| Citation | 50 So. 536,58 Fla. 72 |
| Parties | LOGAN et al. v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Duval County; R. M. Call, Judge.
Walter Logan and others were convicted of manslaughter, and they bring error. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
Where testimony does not appear to be relevant, and its relevancy is not shown by the party offering it, there is no error in excluding it.
Where the evidence is conflicting, but there is some testimony upon which the verdict can be legally predicated, and it has been approved by the trial court in denying a motion for new trial, the verdict will not be disturbed by the appellate court.
COUNSEL L. F. Brothers, for plaintiffs in error.
Park Trammell, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The plaintiffs in error were indicted in the circuit court for Duval county for murder, and convicted of manslaughter. On writ of error it is contended that the verdict is not supported by the evidence, and that error was committed in excluding certain evidence.
At the trial a witness for the defense was asked if, on the day of and before the homicide, he did not advise one of the defendants, Martin Reggins, to go to the deputy sheriff and have the deceased arrested for shooting. The court excluded the question from the jury. No error is made to appear here. Martin Reggins had already testified in his own behalf, and it was not then in evidence that Reggins had asked the deputy sheriff to arrest the deceased for shooting off firearms some time before the alleged homicide. The relevancy of the excluded question is not made to appear.
The evidence in the case is confilicting, and not altogether satisfactory; but there is testimony upon which the verdict could be legally predicated, and the verdict found has been approved by the trial judge in denying a motion for new trial. Under these circumstances, the appellate court will not disturb the verdict. No substantial errors are made to appear, and the judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robinson v. State
...... the jury were not governed by it. Adams v. State, 56. Fla. 1, 48 So. 219; Barnhill v. State, 56 Fla. 16,. 48 So. 251; Kent v. State, 53 Fla. 51, 43 So. 773;. Lindsey v. State, 53 Fla. 56, 43 So. 87;. Williams v. State, 45 Fla. 128, 34 So. 249;. Logan v. State, 58 Fla. 72, 50 So. 536. . . The. fifth, sixth, and seventh grounds of the motion attack. certain charges of the court numbered 3, 5, and 12. The. assignment of error, however, so far as it involves the. last-numbered charge, is abandoned. . . The. third ......
-
Powell v. State
...... grant a new trial on the ground that the verdict was contrary. to the evidence, or to the. [112 So. 611] . weight of the evidence, when the verdict is in accordance. with the law in the case. McNish v. State, 47 Fla. 66, 36 So. 175; Logan v. State, 58 Fla. 72, 50 So. 536. . . A. careful examination of the record in this case disclosed that. there was legal evidence before the jury which, if believed. by the jury, was sufficient to constitute a basis for, and to. support, the verdict which was rendered, and [93 ......
-
Parrish v. State
...court will not disturb a verdict of guilty, which has been approved by the trial court in denying the motion for a new trial. Logan v. State, 58 Fla. 72, 50 So. 536; Caldwell v. State, 62 Fla. 18, 56 So. Boyington v. State, 77, Fla. 602, 81 So. 890; Thompson v. State, 58 Fla. 106, 50 So. 50......
-
Manning v. State
...... nothing in the record to indicate that the jury were not. governed by the evidence, the verdict as found by the jury. will not be disturbed because of the insufficiency of the. evidence to support the verdict. See Drayton v. State, 78 Fla. 254, 82 So. 801; Logan v. State,. 58 Fla. 72, 50 So. 536; McNeal v. State, 76 Fla. 200, 79 So. 728; Williams v. State, 45 Fla. 128, 34. So. 279; Newman v. State, 84 Fla. 455, 94 So. 154;. Williams v. State, 68 Fla. 88, 66 So. 424;. Aberson v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 68 Fla. 196,. 67 So. 44; Gadsden v. State, 77 ......