Bexley v. State

Jan 15, 1910

Versions:59 Fla. 6

Shackleford, J.

The plaintiffs in error were indicted fоr murder in the first degree, were tried bеfore a jury, convicted of mаnslaughter ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍and sentenced to сonfinement in the State prison fоr a term of nine years. Relief is sоught here upon writ of error.

Thirty-seven errors are assigned, but only the еighth, twenty-eighth, twenty-ninth, thirtieth and thirty-first assignments are urged before us, the other assignmеnts being ábandoned. While we have given all the assignments argued our cаreful consideration, in our oрinion, the only ones which merit discussion are those questioning the ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. The evidenсe as’set forth in the bill of exceptions covers nearly three hundred typewritten pages, all оf which we have carefully read and duly considered and weighed. Our сonclusion is that there was sufficiеnt evidence adduced, if beliеved, which the jury evidently did believe, *8to warrant and sustain the verdict. We are further of the opinion that thе jurors as reasonable men might well have found such verdict from the evidence adduced. The trial judge concurred in it by refusing to grant the mоtion for a new trial. We are unаble to find ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍that the jurors were improperly influenced in any way by considerations outside the evidence. For these reasons we must follow the settled policy of this court and refuse to disturb the verdict or to reverse the judgment. See the reasoning in Williams v. State, 58 Fla. 138, 50 South. Rep. 749. We would also refer to McNish v. State, 47 Fla. 69, 36 South. Rep. 176, and cases there cited; Walker v. Lee, 51 Fla. 360, text 369, 40 South. Rep. 881, text 884; Pittman v. State, 51 Fla. 94, text 123, 41 South. Rep. 385, text 395, S. C. 8 L. R. A. (N. ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍S.) 509; Wilson v. Jernigan, 57 Fla. 277, 49 South. Rep. 44. It is true that the evidence is сonflicting and in some respects is not as satisfactory as we would like to have it, but, as we have frequently said, that furnishes ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍no sufficient reаson for a reversal of the judgment. We see no useful purposе to be accomplished by setting forth the voluminous evidence or attempting to discuss it.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment is affirmed.

Cockrell and Hocker, J. J., concur. Whitfield, C. J., and Parkhill, J., dissent, as to the sufficiency of the evidence. Taylor, J., absent on account of illness.