Blythe v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Blythe v. State

195 So. 2d 613

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 21, 1967

DocketNo. 65-585

StatusPublished

This text of 195 So. 2d 613 (Blythe v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Blythe v. State, 195 So. 2d 613 (Fla. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was charged with the crime of being an accessory after the fact to second degree murder. She plead not guilty and upon trial was found guilty by the jury of the crime of being an accessory after the fact to manslaughter. The court entered its judgment and conviction and sentenced the appellant to three years in the state penitentiary.

Appellant contends that the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on the degrees of homicide where the appellant was charged as an accessory after the fact to second degree murder; that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict and judgment and that the prosecutor’s remarks were so prejudicial as to deny the appellant a fair trial.

We find these contentions to be without merit. See: Driggers v. State, 90 Fla. 324, 105 So. 841 (1925); Nickels v. State, 90 Fla. 659, 106 So. 479, 489 (1925); Killingsworth v. State, 90 Fla. 299, 105 So. 834, 837 (1925); Hearn v. State, 43 Fla. 151, 29 So. 433 (1901).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was charged with the crime of being an accessory after the fact to second degree murder. She plead not guilty and upon trial was found guilty by the jury of the crime of being an accessory after the fact to manslaughter. The court entered its judgment and conviction and sentenced the appellant to three years in the state penitentiary.

Appellant contends that the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on the degrees of homicide where the appellant was charged as an accessory after the fact to second degree murder; that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict and judgment and that the prosecutor’s remarks were so prejudicial as to deny the appellant a fair trial.

We find these contentions to be without merit. See: Driggers v. State, 90 Fla. 324, 105 So. 841 (1925); Nickels v. State, 90 Fla. 659, 106 So. 479, 489 (1925); Killingsworth v. State, 90 Fla. 299, 105 So. 834, 837 (1925); Hearn v. State, 43 Fla. 151, 29 So. 433 (1901).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

195 So. 2d 613, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blythe-v-state-fladistctapp-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack