Scott v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Scott v. State

149 So. 480, 111 Fla. 274, 1933 Fla. LEXIS 1964

DecidedJuly 6, 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 149 So. 480 (Scott 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

Scott v. State, 149 So. 480, 111 Fla. 274, 1933 Fla. LEXIS 1964 (Fla. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In this case all the members of the Court are agreed that the judgment should be affirmed as to the convictions of the plaintiffs in error, Walter Scott and Clifford Bishop. But as to the convictions of the defendants, Joe Rayburn and William Henderson, the Court is equally divided in its opinion as to whether the convictions of these men should be affirmed or reversed.

Mr. Chief Justice Davis, Mr.'Justice Terrell and Mr. Justice Brown are of the opinion that the evidence does not warrant sustaining the verdict of guilty as to defendants Joe Rayburn and William Henderson and that therefore the judgments as to these two named plaintiffs in error should be reversed on the authority of McNeil v. State, 104 Fla. 360, 139 Sou. Rep. 791, wherein it was held that a conviction should be reversed and a new trial ordered, where the evidence does not satisfactorily establish accused’s identity as a participant in the crime of which he was convicted. Mr. Justice Whitfield, Mr. Justice Ellis and Mr. Justice Buford are of the opinion that the judgment should be affirmed as to all the plaintiffs in error.

Therefore upon the authority of Black v. State, 106 Fla. 15, 142 Sou. Rep. 599, and cases cited, the judgments are affirmed as to all defendants below, the Court being equally divided as to the affirmance as to two of them and agreed as to the affirmance as to the others.

Affirmed.

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

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

Per Curiam.

In this case all the members of the Court are agreed that the judgment should be affirmed as to the convictions of the plaintiffs in error, Walter Scott and Clifford Bishop. But as to the convictions of the defendants, Joe Rayburn and William Henderson, the Court is equally divided in its opinion as to whether the convictions of these men should be affirmed or reversed.

Mr. Chief Justice Davis, Mr.'Justice Terrell and Mr. Justice Brown are of the opinion that the evidence does not warrant sustaining the verdict of guilty as to defendants Joe Rayburn and William Henderson and that therefore the judgments as to these two named plaintiffs in error should be reversed on the authority of McNeil v. State, 104 Fla. 360, 139 Sou. Rep. 791, wherein it was held that a conviction should be reversed and a new trial ordered, where the evidence does not satisfactorily establish accused’s identity as a participant in the crime of which he was convicted. Mr. Justice Whitfield, Mr. Justice Ellis and Mr. Justice Buford are of the opinion that the judgment should be affirmed as to all the plaintiffs in error.

Therefore upon the authority of Black v. State, 106 Fla. 15, 142 Sou. Rep. 599, and cases cited, the judgments are affirmed as to all defendants below, the Court being equally divided as to the affirmance as to two of them and agreed as to the affirmance as to the others.

Affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 So. 480, 111 Fla. 274, 1933 Fla. LEXIS 1964, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-v-state-fla-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack