Bailey v. State

Citations

• 76 Fla. 103
• 79 So. 748

Syllabus

<p>1. The legal effect of evidence or the lack of evidence in its relation to a verdict rendered in a trial may by appropriate proceedings be reviewed by an Appellate Court, yet conflicts in competent testimony, the weight of legal evidence, and the credibility of competent witnesses are primarily for the determination of the jury; and where there is some substantial competent evidence of all the facts legally essential to support the verdict, and there is nothing in the • record to indicate that the jury were not governed by the evidence, a refusal of the trial court to grant a new trial on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict will not be disturbed by the Appellate Court.</p> <p>2. In this jurisdiction the statutory offense of buying and receiving stolen property knowing it to have been stolen is a substantive offense, distinct from the crime of the larceny of the property.</p> <p>3. One who commits larceny may not be convicted of buying and receiving the stolen property, upon a charge of the statutory offense of buying and receiving stolen property knowing it to have been stolen. Adams v. State, 60 Fla. 1, 53 South. Rep. 451.</p>