Porter v. State

94 So. 680, 84 Fla. 552
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided November 18, 1922·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam

The charge in this case is grand larceny. The property alleged to have been stolen is an automobile. The verdict- was guilty as charged with recommendation of [553] mercy of the court. By writ of error tbe judgment adjudging guilt and imposing sentence is here for review.

Because of tbe inconclusive character of tbe proof, errors assigned in tbe admission of evidence respecting other similar offenses alleged to have been committed by tbe defendant and comments of counsel on behalf of tbe State during tbe trial regarding such alleged crimes cannot be considered as harmless errors, and it is considered that justice demands another trial of tbe case when a recurrence of such errors are improbable.

Eeversed.

Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.

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

Porter v. State, 94 So. 680, 84 Fla. 552 (Fla. 1922).

94 So. 680 (Porter v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

St. Moritz Hotel v. Daughtry
249 So. 2d 27 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1971)
Demetree v. State Ex Rel. Marsh
89 So. 2d 498 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1956)
Willis v. Hathaway
117 So. 89 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1928)
Pompano Horse Club, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Bryan
111 So. 801 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1927)