Martinez v. State

Citations

• 76 Fla. 159
• 79 So. 751

Syllabus

<p>1. The legal effect of the verdict of a Jury finding a defendant gulity upon one count of an information is to acquit him of the offense or offenses charged in other counts of. such information.</p> <p>2. While the legal effect of evidence or the lack of evidence in its relation to a verdict rendered hy a Jury 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 suport 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>3. In a criminal prosecution for burning a building which was insured, with intent to injure the insurer, it is not error to permit an insurance agent to testify from his records as to his knowledge of the eyistence of a policy of insurance issued by him covering the building, the defendant being entitled to the possession of the policy and cannot be required to produce evidence against themselves.</p> <p>4. Under an indictment charging one with the statutory offense of burning certain merchandise and furniture and fixtures which were at the time insured against loss or damage by fire with intent to injure the insurer a corporation, proof that such corporation is a corporation de, facto is competent and sufficient.</p> <p>5 It is not reversible error to admit incompetent testimony where it is afterwards excluded and the jury is instructed to disregard it.</p>