Smith v. State of Florida

116 So. 642, 95 Fla. 821
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided April 26, 1928·Published

Opinion

Terrell, J.

Plaintiff in error was indicted and tried for murder and convicted of manslaughter in the Circuit Court of Escambia County. By writ of error he comes here challenging his conviction. The main question brought up for our consideration is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. The evidence was circum *822 stantial. We do not think it meets the circumstantial evidence rule prescribed' by this Court in Hall v. State, 90 Fla. 719, 107 Sou. 246 and eases there cited, so the judgment below is reversed and a new trial awarded.

Reversed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Buford, J., concur. Ellis, C. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.

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

Smith v. State of Florida, 116 So. 642, 95 Fla. 821 (Fla. 1928).

116 So. 642 (Smith v. State of Florida) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hall v. State
107 So. 246 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1925)