Siegel v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Siegel v. State

274 So. 2d 9, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 7121

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 6, 1973

DocketNo. 72-848

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 274 So. 2d 9 (Siegel v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Siegel v. State, 274 So. 2d 9, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 7121 (Fla. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was charged by information with breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit grand larceny and assaulting a person therein, and in a second count with assault and battery. Trial was held before a jury. The defendant was found guilty on the first count and acquitted on the second. On this appeal therefrom by the defendant, the several contentions presented for reversal have been considered in the light of the record, briefs and argument and are found to be without merit. The assignment of error relied on for appellant’s contention of insufficiency of the evidence is directed to the verdict, rather than to the judgment. However, the record discloses the verdict and judgment were supported by competent substantial evidence. Error is not shown in relation to the jury charges given by the court. In the circumstances of the case the defendant’s motion for mistrial was properly denied.

No reversible error having been made to appear, the judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was charged by information with breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit grand larceny and assaulting a person therein, and in a second count with assault and battery. Trial was held before a jury. The defendant was found guilty on the first count and acquitted on the second. On this appeal therefrom by the defendant, the several contentions presented for reversal have been considered in the light of the record, briefs and argument and are found to be without merit. The assignment of error relied on for appellant’s contention of insufficiency of the evidence is directed to the verdict, rather than to the judgment. However, the record discloses the verdict and judgment were supported by competent substantial evidence. Error is not shown in relation to the jury charges given by the court. In the circumstances of the case the defendant’s motion for mistrial was properly denied.

No reversible error having been made to appear, the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

274 So. 2d 9, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 7121, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/siegel-v-state-fladistctapp-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack