Case Name: Preston Goolsby, Plaintiff in Error, v. The State of Florida, Defendant in Error
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1923-10-12
Citations: 86 Fla. 307
Docket Number: 
Parties: Preston Goolsby, Plaintiff in Error, v. The State of Florida, Defendant in Error.
Judges: Whitfield, P. J., and West, J., concur.
Reporter: Florida Reports
Volume: 86
Pages: 307–308

Head Matter:
Preston Goolsby, Plaintiff in Error, v. The State of Florida, Defendant in Error.
Opinion Filed October 12, 1923.
1. The refusal of requested charges covered or substantially covered in the general charge does not constitute reversible error.
2. When there is any evidence to support the verdict, it will not be set aside unless it clearly appears that the jury was influenced by considerations outside the evidence.
This case was decided by Division B.
A Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Lake County; O. O. Andrews, Judge.
Affirmed.
J. W. Himter, for Plaintiff in Error;
Divers Buford, Attorney General, and M. C. McIntosh, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
Terrell, J.
Preston Goolsby was convicted in Lake County of being present, aiding and abetting one Lewis Parker in the larceny of a steer, the property of George J. Griffin. He was sentenced to the State prison for two years and seeks to have this judgment reversed.
The insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict and the refusal of the court to charge the jury that the "State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the animal in question was the property of George J. Griffin and the State must show that the animal in question was the identical animal described by George J. Griffin in the testimony," are the only errors presented for reversal.
It appears that the requested charge or such portion thereof as plaintiff in error was entitled to have given was fully covered in the general charge to the jury and the refusal of the court to repeat the same could not properly be assigned as error. Hall v. State, 78 Fla. 420, 83 South. Rep. 513.
The evidence was in part circumstantial, but we think that it warrants the verdict, and it nowhere appears that the jury was influenced by circumstances outside of the evidence adduced.
Where there is any evidence to support the verdict, it will not be set aside as against such evidence unless it is made clear that the jury were improperly influenced by considerations foreign to the evidence. Browning v. State, 41 Fla. 271, 26 South. Rep. 639; Lindsey v. State, 53 Fla. 56, 43 South. Rep. 87; Adams v. State, 56 Fla. 1, 48 South. Rep. 219; Barnhill v. State, 56 Fla. 16, 48 South. Rep. 251.
The judgment of the Circuit Court of Lake County is, therefore, affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and West, J., concur.
Taylor, C. J., and Ellis and Browne, J. J., Concur in the Opinion.