From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bloodgood v. State of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida, En Banc
Oct 12, 1927
114 So. 528 (Fla. 1927)

Opinion

Opinion Filed October 12, 1927.

A Writ of Error to the Criminal Court of Record for Hillsborough County; W. Raleigh Petteway, Judge.

Judgment reversed.

Tom Walden, Attorney for Plaintiff in Error;

Fred H. Davis, Attorney General, and H. E. Carter, Assistant, Attorneys for Defendant in Error.


The plaintiff in error was convicted under the third count of an information charging him with the crime of being accessory before the fact of the larceny of a Ford automobile. The only assignment of error is that the court erred in failing to grant motion for a new trial. One of the grounds of the motion for new trial was that there was no evidence to support the verdict rendered by the jury.

It is well settled that where there is substantial evidence to support the verdict of the jury and there is no showing that the verdict of the jury was influenced by anything outside the evidence, this Court will not reverse the judgment, although the record shows conflicting evidence, and although the jury under all the evidence might reasonably have arrived at some other verdict.

In this case, however, a careful consideration of the record discloses no evidence sufficient to constitute a basis for the verdict rendered. And, therefore, it becomes the duty of this Court to reverse the judgment which was entered against the defendant upon the evidence as shown by the record and it is so ordered.

Reversed.

ELLIS, C. J., AND WHITFIELD, TERRELL, STRUM AND BUFORD, J. J., concur.


Summaries of

Bloodgood v. State of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida, En Banc
Oct 12, 1927
114 So. 528 (Fla. 1927)
Case details for

Bloodgood v. State of Florida

Case Details

Full title:CARTER BLOODGOOD, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Defendant in…

Court:Supreme Court of Florida, En Banc

Date published: Oct 12, 1927

Citations

114 So. 528 (Fla. 1927)
114 So. 528

Citing Cases

Hurley v. State

The fact that appellant survived a row like this is not sufficient to convict her. There must be evidence…

Frank v. State

Where the record discloses no circumstantial evidence which would constitute the basis for a verdict of…