Maples v. State

Supreme Court of Florida October 21, 1914

Maples v. State, 68 Fla. 87 (Fla. 1914)

66 So. 423

Cockrell, Family, Hocker, Illness, Reason, Shackleford, Taylor, Whitfield

Opinion of the Court

Shackleford, C. J.

M. W. Maples was indicted and tried for murder and convicted of manslaughter.

Several errors are assigned, but the one most strenuously urged before us is based upon the overruling of the motion for a new trial. It is contended that the evidence adduced is not sufficient to support the verdict found. We are of the opinion that this contention has not been sustained. No useful purpose would be served by setting forth or discussing the evidence. We have carefully read all the evidence and are impelled to the conclusion that it is amply sufficient. The other assignments are so lightly insisted upon that we might well treat them as having *88been waived by a failure to argue them. It is sufficient to say that no error has been made to appear to us, therefore the judgment must be affirmed.

Taylor, Hocker and Whitfield, J. J., concur. Cockrell, J., absent by reason of illness in his family.

Reference

Full Case Name: M. W. Maples, in Error v. The State of Florida, in Error
Cited By: 1 case
Status: Published
Syllabus: When the trial court concurs in the verdict rendered by a jury by denying the motion for a new trial, and there is evidence to support it, an appellate court should refuse to disturb it, in the absence of any showing that the jurors must have been improperly influenced by considerations outside the evidence.