Collinsworth v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Collinsworth v. State

89 So. 802, 82 Fla. 291

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedOctober 19, 1921

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 89 So. 802 (Collinsworth v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Collinsworth v. State, 89 So. 802, 82 Fla. 291 (Fla. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

West, J.

Plaintiff in error and Ray Howe were indicted and tried in the Circuit Court of Santa Rosa County upon a charge of breaking .and entering a store building with intent to commit a felony. They were convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor. To the judgment imposing sentence they both took writ of error from this Court. Subsequently, upon motion of counsel, the writ of error was dismissed as to Howe.

There are a number of assignments of error in the record. [292]*292All of them, except one questioning the sufficiency of the «evidence to sustain the verdict, are based upon rulings of the trial court admitting or excluding evidence or refusing to give requested instructions to the jury. Discussion of them would be of no profit. Harmful error is not made to •appear by any of them. They are well within the established rule that a judgment of conviction will not be reversed even if technical errors were committed in rulings on the admissibility of evidence or in charges given or refused where the evidence is sufficient and no fundamental rights of the 'defendants are in fringed. Poyner v. State, 81 Fla. 726, 88 South. Rep. 762; Riggins v. State, 78 Fla. 459, 83 South. Rep. 267; Dixon v. State, 77 Fla. 143, 80 South. Rep. 741; Barker v. State, 76 Fla. 164, 79 South. Rep. 436; Settles v. State, 75 Fla. 296, 78 South. Rep. 287; Milligan v. State, 75 Fla. 815, 78 South. Rep. 535; Smith v. State, 74 Fla. 44, 76 South Rep. 334.

There is' conflict in the evidence but the jury who saw and heard the witnesses accepted as true the evidence offered in behalf of the State and their verdict has the sanction of the trial judge. The evidence is legally sufficient to support the verdict and there is nothing to indicate that the jury were influenced by considerations outside this evidence. Under the well established rule where this is the case the judgment will be affirmed. Kirkland v. State, 82 Fla. 119, 89 South. Rep. 356; Hamlin v. State, 80 Fla. 217, 85 South. Rep. 685; Brown v. State, 79 Fla. 523, 84 South. Rep. 384; Wallace v. State, 76 Fla. 175, 79 South. Rep. 634; Messer v. State, 75 Fla. 619, 78 South. Rep. 680; McCoy v. State, 75 Fla. 294, 78 South. Rep. 168.

Affirmed.

Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield and Ellis, J. J., concur.

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

West, J.

Plaintiff in error and Ray Howe were indicted and tried in the Circuit Court of Santa Rosa County upon a charge of breaking .and entering a store building with intent to commit a felony. They were convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor. To the judgment imposing sentence they both took writ of error from this Court. Subsequently, upon motion of counsel, the writ of error was dismissed as to Howe.

There are a number of assignments of error in the record. [292]*292All of them, except one questioning the sufficiency of the «evidence to sustain the verdict, are based upon rulings of the trial court admitting or excluding evidence or refusing to give requested instructions to the jury. Discussion of them would be of no profit. Harmful error is not made to •appear by any of them. They are well within the established rule that a judgment of conviction will not be reversed even if technical errors were committed in rulings on the admissibility of evidence or in charges given or refused where the evidence is sufficient and no fundamental rights of the 'defendants are in fringed. Poyner v. State, 81 Fla. 726, 88 South. Rep. 762; Riggins v. State, 78 Fla. 459, 83 South. Rep. 267; Dixon v. State, 77 Fla. 143, 80 South. Rep. 741; Barker v. State, 76 Fla. 164, 79 South. Rep. 436; Settles v. State, 75 Fla. 296, 78 South. Rep. 287; Milligan v. State, 75 Fla. 815, 78 South. Rep. 535; Smith v. State, 74 Fla. 44, 76 South Rep. 334.

There is' conflict in the evidence but the jury who saw and heard the witnesses accepted as true the evidence offered in behalf of the State and their verdict has the sanction of the trial judge. The evidence is legally sufficient to support the verdict and there is nothing to indicate that the jury were influenced by considerations outside this evidence. Under the well established rule where this is the case the judgment will be affirmed. Kirkland v. State, 82 Fla. 119, 89 South. Rep. 356; Hamlin v. State, 80 Fla. 217, 85 South. Rep. 685; Brown v. State, 79 Fla. 523, 84 South. Rep. 384; Wallace v. State, 76 Fla. 175, 79 South. Rep. 634; Messer v. State, 75 Fla. 619, 78 South. Rep. 680; McCoy v. State, 75 Fla. 294, 78 South. Rep. 168.

Affirmed.

Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield and Ellis, J. J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 So. 802, 82 Fla. 291, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/collinsworth-v-state-fla-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack