Floyd v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Floyd v. State

131 So. 410, 100 Fla. 1368

DecidedNovember 26, 1930

StatusPublished

This text of 131 So. 410 (Floyd 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

Floyd v. State, 131 So. 410, 100 Fla. 1368 (Fla. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.—David

Floyd was tried and convicted for breaking and entering a building with intent' to commit a misdemeanor and petty larceny. He was sentenced to a term of three years in the state penitentiary and seeks reversal on writ of error.

*1369 The sole question relied on for reversal is the. sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict and judgment. The evidence has been examined and while it is contradictory in the extreme, there is ample positive evidence to support the verdict and it is not made to appear that the jury were influenced by considerations outside the evidence. The facts do not bring this case within the rule announced in Troop v. State, 98 Fla. 385, 123 So. R. 811, 813 or Fuller v. State, 92 Fla. 873, 110 So. R. 528.

Affirmed.

Terrell, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Strum, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.

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

Per Curiam.—David

Floyd was tried and convicted for breaking and entering a building with intent' to commit a misdemeanor and petty larceny. He was sentenced to a term of three years in the state penitentiary and seeks reversal on writ of error.

*1369 The sole question relied on for reversal is the. sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict and judgment. The evidence has been examined and while it is contradictory in the extreme, there is ample positive evidence to support the verdict and it is not made to appear that the jury were influenced by considerations outside the evidence. The facts do not bring this case within the rule announced in Troop v. State, 98 Fla. 385, 123 So. R. 811, 813 or Fuller v. State, 92 Fla. 873, 110 So. R. 528.

Affirmed.

Terrell, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Strum, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 So. 410, 100 Fla. 1368, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/floyd-v-state-fla-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack