Wright v. State

LIVINGSTON, Chief Justice.

Petitioner argues in support of his petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals that the following statement of the Court of Appeals on rehearing [111 So.2d 595] is an erroneous statement of the law:

“Wright has applied for a rehearing asking us to reconsider mainly (1) our view of the joint criminal responsibility of Berness and Wright; and (2) that it was error not to have condemned the trial court’s use (on page 593 of 111 So.2d) of: ‘If you are satisfied * * * beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Wright was not driving * >1= *.* (Italics supplied.)

“As to the…