Skip to main content

McDonald v. State

Citations

  • 56 Fla. 74

Syllabus

<p>1. In a criminal prosecution a verdict of guilty will not in general be disturbed upon the ^ground of the insufficiency of the evidence, where there is some evidence from which all the elements of the crime may legally have been found or inferred, and it does not appear that the jury were not governed 'by the evidence adduced at the trial.</p> <p>2. A verdict will not be set aside by an appellate court where the propriety of the verdict depends not upon the lack of evidence, but upon the credibility of conflicting witnesses.</p> <p>3. In a criminal prosecution a verdict of guilty should not be found unless upon a consideration of all the evidence it appears therefrom beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offense charged.</p> <p>4. Where a verdict of guilty has been found i-n a criminal prosecution and a motion is made for a new trial upon the insufficiency of the evidence, the trial court should grant the motion if it appears to the court that there is difficulty in reconciling the verdict with the justice of the case and the manifest weight of the evidence.</p> <p>5. An appellate court should not grant a new trial upon the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain a verdict of guilty affirmed by the trial court if there is some evidence of all the -facts legally essential to support the verdict, and the whole evidence is such that the verdict may have fairly been found on it.</p> <p>6. A verdict of guilty of larceny may be found from- the unexplained possession of -goods recently stolen.</p> <p>7. Where a party w-h-o is found in possession of goods recently stolen, directly gives a reasonable and credible account of how he came into such possession, or such an account as will faise a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury, then it becomes the duty of the state to prove that such account is untrue, otherwise h.e should be acquitted. The account given must be not only reasonable, but it must be credible, or enough so to raise a reasonable doub

Judges: Cockrell, Hocker, Parkhill, Shackleford, Taylor, Whitfield

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

43 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

23 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.