state's evidence deemed insufficient to sustain an arson conviction
How later courts described this case
- state's evidence deemed insufficient to sustain an arson conviction
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Per Curiam.
The writ of error herein was taken to a judgment of conviction for arson and a sentence to “be confined at hard labor in the State Prison of the State of Florida for a period of eight (8) years.” The charge is that the defendant did “willfully and maliciously set fire to and burn a certain dwelling house, to-wit:” etc.
The evidence is largely circumstantial; and while much of it is consistent with guilt of the defendant, it is not clear
*430
that the evidence as a whole is inconsistent with innocence and justified a finding that beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is guilty of the crime as charged, of “willfully and maliciously” setting fire to and burning the dwelling, as defined by Section 1 of Chapter 15603, Acts of 1931, Section 7208 (8) Supp. 1934 to C. G. L: of 1927, the constitutionality of which Act was adjudged and the statute interpreted in Love v. State, 107 Fla. 376 , 144 So. 843 . See Whetston v. State, 31 Fla. 240 , 12 So. 661 . See also Lee v. State, 96 Fla. 59 , 116 So. 656 .
“It is proper for the court to charge the jury as to the distinctions made between direct and circumstantial evidence, especially in a case where such proof is in a great measure circumstantial.” Newton v. State, 21 Fla. 53 , headnote 12.
A consideration of the entire record leads to the conclusion that a new trial should be granted.
Reversed for a new trial.
Whitfield, C. J.,.and Ellis, Terrell and Davis, J. J., concur.
Brown and Buford, J. J., dissent.