Chaney v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Chaney v. State

212 So. 2d 318, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5292

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided July 2, 1968·No. No. 68-36·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Mrs. Chaney appeals her conviction for possession of lottery tickets. The appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings of guilt. She argues that the convictions should be reversed because the testimony given by the two police officers who arrested her and who were the only State witnesses at her non-jury trial conflicted. We hold that despite the conflict, the essential elements necessary to prove the charges against the appellant are present in the record. Therefore we shall not interfere with, the conclusions of the trial judge. See Eizenman v. State, Fla.App.1961, 132 So.2d 763, and cases cited therein. Cf. Miller v. State, Fla.App.1964, 170 So.2d 319.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Mrs. Chaney appeals her conviction for possession of lottery tickets. The appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings of guilt. She argues that the convictions should be reversed because the testimony given by the two police officers who arrested her and who were the only State witnesses at her non-jury trial conflicted. We hold that despite the conflict, the essential elements necessary to prove the charges against the appellant are present in the record. Therefore we shall not interfere with, the conclusions of the trial judge. See Eizenman v. State, Fla.App.1961, 132 So.2d 763, and cases cited therein. Cf. Miller v. State, Fla.App.1964, 170 So.2d 319.

Affirmed.

Chaney v. State, 212 So. 2d 318, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5292 (Fla. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

212 So. 2d 318 (Chaney v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related