Wood v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Wood v. State

176 So. 755, 129 Fla. 768, 1937 Fla. LEXIS 1182

Supreme Court of Florida·Decided October 28, 1937·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The writ of error brings for review judgment of conviction of grand larceny.

The plaintiff in error and one Jack Miller were indicted and prosecuted jointly for the theft of a Ford Sedan automobile of the value of Six Hundred ($600.00) Dollars.

The contention of the plaintiff in error is that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment.

We have examined the record and find ample substantial evidence to. sustain the verdict and judgment and no reversible error being made to appear, the judgment should .be affirmed.

It is so ordered.

Affirmed.

Ellis, C. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur. Whitfield, P, J., concurs in the opinion and judgment. Brown, J., dissents. Chapman, J., disqualified.

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

Per Curiam.

The writ of error brings for review judgment of conviction of grand larceny.

The plaintiff in error and one Jack Miller were indicted and prosecuted jointly for the theft of a Ford Sedan automobile of the value of Six Hundred ($600.00) Dollars.

The contention of the plaintiff in error is that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment.

We have examined the record and find ample substantial evidence to. sustain the verdict and judgment and no reversible error being made to appear, the judgment should .be affirmed.

It is so ordered.

Affirmed.

Ellis, C. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur. Whitfield, P, J., concurs in the opinion and judgment. Brown, J., dissents. Chapman, J., disqualified.

Wood v. State, 176 So. 755, 129 Fla. 768, 1937 Fla. LEXIS 1182 (Fla. 1937).

Pincite

176 So. 755 (Wood v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.