Ellison v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Ellison v. State

156 So. 123, 115 Fla. 789, 1934 Fla. LEXIS 1685

Supreme Court of Florida·Decided July 17, 1934·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiffs in error were indicted, tried and convicted of the offense of the larceny of one bull, the property of one W. J. Winburn.

The evidence as to the identity and ownership of the animal killed, butchered and sold by the plaintiffs in error is entirely unsatisfactory and unconvincing. It does not measure up to that degree of proof which is' required to establish guilt. At best, it could only be sufficient to create suspicion that the plaintiffs in error were guilty of the offense charged.

• The judgment should, therefore, be reversed and a new trial awarded. It is so ordered.

Reversed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Buford, J. J., concur. *790 Davis, C. J., and Terrell, J., concur in the opinion and judgment.

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

Per Curiam.

Plaintiffs in error were indicted, tried and convicted of the offense of the larceny of one bull, the property of one W. J. Winburn.

The evidence as to the identity and ownership of the animal killed, butchered and sold by the plaintiffs in error is entirely unsatisfactory and unconvincing. It does not measure up to that degree of proof which is' required to establish guilt. At best, it could only be sufficient to create suspicion that the plaintiffs in error were guilty of the offense charged.

• The judgment should, therefore, be reversed and a new trial awarded. It is so ordered.

Reversed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Buford, J. J., concur. *790 Davis, C. J., and Terrell, J., concur in the opinion and judgment.

Ellison v. State, 156 So. 123, 115 Fla. 789, 1934 Fla. LEXIS 1685 (Fla. 1934).

Pincite

156 So. 123 (Ellison v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related