Hood v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Hood v. State

116 So. 647, 95 Fla. 767

Supreme Court of Florida·Decided April 21, 1928·Published

Opinion

Buford, J.

In this case the State was allowed to introduce evidence over the objection of defendants tending to prove a crime other than that charged in the indictment and for which the defendants were then on trial.

The entire evidence, when taken together, scarcely meets the requirements of evidence sufficient to convict and it is our opinion that the irrelevant testimony above referred to was prejudicial to the defendants.

The ease should be reversed on authority of the opinion in the case of Boyette v. the State, filed in this Court March 28, 1928, and it is so ordered. See also Nickels v. State, 106 Sou. Rep. 479.

Reversed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell, J., concur. Ellis, C. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.

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

Buford, J.

In this case the State was allowed to introduce evidence over the objection of defendants tending to prove a crime other than that charged in the indictment and for which the defendants were then on trial.

The entire evidence, when taken together, scarcely meets the requirements of evidence sufficient to convict and it is our opinion that the irrelevant testimony above referred to was prejudicial to the defendants.

The ease should be reversed on authority of the opinion in the case of Boyette v. the State, filed in this Court March 28, 1928, and it is so ordered. See also Nickels v. State, 106 Sou. Rep. 479.

Reversed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell, J., concur. Ellis, C. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.

Hood v. State, 116 So. 647, 95 Fla. 767 (Fla. 1928).

Pincite

116 So. 647 (Hood v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related