Judges: PER CURIAM. —
Attorneys: Wayne Allen and Vincent C. Giblin, for Plaintiff in Error;
Cary D. Landis, Attorney General, and Roy Campbell, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
Filed: Nov. 10, 1933
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: S.D. Callaway was charged by information lodged in the Criminal Court of Record for Dade County with an offense denounced by Sections 7486 and 7487, Compiled General Laws, 1927, was found guilty as charged, and *Page 600 sentenced by the court under the provisions of the latter Section. Section 7485, C. G. L., denounces an offense different from that denounced by Sections 7486 and 7487 and prescribes a different punishment. The offense denounced by Section 7485, C. G. L., is a misdemeanor, while
Summary: S.D. Callaway was charged by information lodged in the Criminal Court of Record for Dade County with an offense denounced by Sections 7486 and 7487, Compiled General Laws, 1927, was found guilty as charged, and *Page 600 sentenced by the court under the provisions of the latter Section. Section 7485, C. G. L., denounces an offense different from that denounced by Sections 7486 and 7487 and prescribes a different punishment. The offense denounced by Section 7485, C. G. L., is a misdemeanor, while ..
More
Upon reargument and reconsideration of this case on rehearing, a majority of this Court have reached the conclusion that the opinion heretofore rendered herein on November 10, 1933, should be adhered to in all particulars as to the law of the case, but that the judgment of the Criminal Court of Record should be reversed and a new trial awarded on the ground that the ends of justice will be best subserved by granting a new trial on the authority of Council v. State, 111 Fla. 173,149 Sou. Rep. 13, and Haag v. State, 111 Fla. 781,149 Sou. Rep. 566, wherein it was held that where evidence supporting a conviction for felony bears such earmarks of falsehood and uncertainty as to amount to a legal insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, a new trial will be awarded by the appellate court in order that another jury may have an opportunity to pass on the evidence. Armstrong v. State,30 Fla. 170, 11 Sou. Rep. 618, 17 L.R.A. 484.
Reversed on rehearing and remanded for a new trial.
DAVIS, C. J., and ELLIS, TERRELL and BUFORD, J. J., concur.
WHITFIELD and BROWN, J. J., concur in the reversal.
