Roland v. State

Supreme Court of Florida
Roland v. State, 68 Fla. 153 (Fla. 1914)
67 So. 42
Cockrell, Hocker, Shackleford, Taylor, Whitfield

Roland v. State

Opinion of the Court

Shackleford, C. J.

Lonnie Roland, alias Lonnie Roling, was tried and convicted of tbe crime of murder in the first degree.

Three errors are assigned, all of which are based upon the overruling of the motion for a new trial, and all question the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. It would be a fruitless task to set out the evidence. Suffice it to say that we have carefully read all the evidence adduced and are clear that it is amply sufficient to support the verdict, and we are of the opinion that the trial judge was fully warranted in overruling the motion. We must concur with him in refusing to disturb the verdict. See Bexley v. State, 59 Fla. 6, 51 South. Rep. 278.

*154Judgment affirmed.

Taylor, Cockrell, Hocker, and Whitfield, J. J., concur.

Reference

Full Case Name
Lonnie Roland, Alias Lonnie Roling, in Error v. The State of Florida, in Error
Cited By
2 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
When tlie 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, appellate courts should refuse to disturb it, in the absence of any showing that the jurors must have been improperly influenced by considerations outside of the evidence.