Street v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Street v. State

79 So. 729, 76 Fla. 217

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedAugust 9, 1918

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 79 So. 729 (Street 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

Street v. State, 79 So. 729, 76 Fla. 217 (Fla. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Whitfield, J.

On writ of error to a conviction for being a common liquor dealer, a felony under the statute, Chapter 6861, Acts of 1915, it is contended that the court erred in refusing a requested instruction that “a reasonable doubt of a person’s guilt may exist, though there may not be a probability of his innocence,” and that the evidence does not support the verdict.

The State’s case largely depended upon the testimony of witnesses employed to detect such violations of the law. The evidence being believed by the jury was amply sufficient to sustain the conviction.

If the refused request be sound law and is applicable to the evidence adduced, the court gave a full and proper charge on reasonable doubt, and also charged that “While it is entirely legitimate for the Sheriff to employ detectives or spotters to run down and ascertain those who violate the law, the court instructs you that when people act in -the capacity of private detectives or spotters their evidence should be received with caution, and it becomes the duty of the jury to scrutinize the testimony of such [219]*219persons to say whether or not the testimony of the persons so acting is biased, whether the interest they served has influenced them to an extent that would reflect upon or affect their testimony.”

Even if errors were committed as asserted, they were harmless in view of the whole record.

Judgment affirmed.

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

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

Whitfield, J.

On writ of error to a conviction for being a common liquor dealer, a felony under the statute, Chapter 6861, Acts of 1915, it is contended that the court erred in refusing a requested instruction that “a reasonable doubt of a person’s guilt may exist, though there may not be a probability of his innocence,” and that the evidence does not support the verdict.

The State’s case largely depended upon the testimony of witnesses employed to detect such violations of the law. The evidence being believed by the jury was amply sufficient to sustain the conviction.

If the refused request be sound law and is applicable to the evidence adduced, the court gave a full and proper charge on reasonable doubt, and also charged that “While it is entirely legitimate for the Sheriff to employ detectives or spotters to run down and ascertain those who violate the law, the court instructs you that when people act in -the capacity of private detectives or spotters their evidence should be received with caution, and it becomes the duty of the jury to scrutinize the testimony of such [219]*219persons to say whether or not the testimony of the persons so acting is biased, whether the interest they served has influenced them to an extent that would reflect upon or affect their testimony.”

Even if errors were committed as asserted, they were harmless in view of the whole record.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 So. 729, 76 Fla. 217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/street-v-state-fla-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack