Legal Opinion

Grooms v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided April 11, 1923PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWhitfield, J.

The plaintiff in error and two others were indicted for the larceny of an automobile. A former conviction was reversed because an erroneous charge was given that related to the burden of proof and may reasonably have, been harmful. Grooms v. State, 83 Fla. 547, 92 South. Rep. 153.

This writ of error was taken to a subsequent conviction, after a severance of the'defendants was had.

*414There is ample evidence that the automobile was taken without the consent of the owner, and that the plaintiff in error was one of the three who left the neighborhood at night and rode in the car to Georgia, where…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. McDonald v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1908
  2. Groover v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1921
  3. Baldwin v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1903
  4. Synes v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1919
  5. Grooms v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1922

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Waters v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1974
  2. State v. BlotzerNebraska Supreme Court · 1972
  3. Hitson v. MayoSupreme Court of Florida · 1957
  4. State v. GreenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1973
  5. State v. GreenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1973

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API