Maples v. State

66 So. 423, 68 Fla. 87
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedOctober 21, 1914
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 66 So. 423 (Maples 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
Maples v. State, 66 So. 423, 68 Fla. 87 (Fla. 1914).

Opinion

Shackleford, C. J.

M. W. Maples was indicted and tried for murder and convicted of manslaughter.

Several errors are assigned, but the one most strenuously urged before us is based upon the overruling of the motion for a new trial. It is contended that the evidence adduced is not sufficient to support the verdict found. We are of the opinion that this contention has not been sustained. No useful purpose would be served by setting forth or discussing the evidence. We have carefully read all the evidence and are impelled to the conclusion that it is amply sufficient. The other assignments are so lightly insisted upon that we might well treat them as having [88]*88been waived by a failure to argue them. It is sufficient to say that no error has been made to appear to us, therefore the judgment must be affirmed.

Taylor, Hocker and Whitfield, J. J., concur. Cockrell, J., absent by reason of illness in his family.

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

Related

Jackson v. State
71 So. 41 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1916)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
66 So. 423, 68 Fla. 87, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maples-v-state-fla-1914.