Hornsby v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Hornsby v. State

200 So. 541, 146 Fla. 23, 1941 Fla. LEXIS 1065

Supreme Court of Florida·Decided February 4, 1941·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The sole error complained of is that the evidence was insufficient to support a verdict of guilty of grand larceny. We have examined it and are of the opinion that there was ample testimony to justify the verdict and judgment of the court.

It is, therefore, ordered that the judgment be—

Affirmed.

Whitfield, Buford, Chapman and Thomas, J. J., concur. Brown, C. J., Terrell and Adams, J. J., dissent.

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

Per Curiam.

The sole error complained of is that the evidence was insufficient to support a verdict of guilty of grand larceny. We have examined it and are of the opinion that there was ample testimony to justify the verdict and judgment of the court.

It is, therefore, ordered that the judgment be—

Affirmed.

Whitfield, Buford, Chapman and Thomas, J. J., concur. Brown, C. J., Terrell and Adams, J. J., dissent.

Hornsby v. State, 200 So. 541, 146 Fla. 23, 1941 Fla. LEXIS 1065 (Fla. 1941).

Pincite

200 So. 541 (Hornsby v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.