ยง

Shuler v. State

132 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 1961)
Shuler v. State

5 Citing cases

  1. Shuler v. Wainwright

    341 F. Supp. 1061 (M.D. Fla. 1972)   Cited 9 times

    F.S.A. ยง 794.01 Shuler v. State, Fla., 132 So.2d 7 (1961). (1) That the confessions were not freely and voluntarily made by them, and

  2. Shuler v. Wainwright

    491 F.2d 1213 (5th Cir. 1974)   Cited 39 times
    In Shuler v. Wainwright, 491 F.2d 1213 (5th Cir. 1974), we found the district court had improperly rejected state fact findings under ยง 2254(d) without indicating a standard of review; moreover, the parties put that case before the federal habeas court solely upon the state record.

    This, however, has been abrogated by the decision of the Supreme Court in Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972). The convictions were affirmed on direct appeal by the Supreme Court of Florida, 132 So.2d 7 (1961). The Court held that the evidence had established the corpus delicti and that the confessions were voluntarily made.

  3. Finley v. State

    378 So. 2d 842 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)   Cited 6 times

    We therefore cannot substitute a contrary judgment for that of the trial judge who heard the witnesses and who was in a much better position to judge of their credibility than we should do from the reading of the cold record herein. Shuler v. State, 132 So.2d 7 (Fla. 1961); Ebert v. State, 140 So.2d 63 (Fla.App. 2, 1962); Barker v. State, 271 So.2d 790 (Fla.App. 3, 1973). As to the trial court's determination in so many words that he found the statements admitted into evidence as having been voluntarily made by appellant, we conclude that the totality of the evidence adduced and the statements made by the trial court during the hearing on the motions and at the conclusion thereof show clearly that he did rule that they were voluntarily made.

  4. State v. Hodges

    169 So. 2d 361 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1964)   Cited 2 times

    It is likewise settled in this jurisdiction that the corpus delicti may be established by circumstantial evidence. Shuler v. State, Fla. 1961, 132 So.2d 7. * * *" Moreover, as to the order of proof, and the effect of presenting the admission or confession first, the Supreme Court, in Parrish v. State, 90 Fla. 25, 105 So. 130, 132, said:

  5. Harper v. State

    141 So. 2d 606 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1962)   Cited 6 times

    Williams v. State, Fla. App. 1960, 117 So.2d 548; and Cross v. State, 1928, 96 Fla. 768, 119 So. 380. It is likewise settled in this jurisdiction that the corpus delicti may be established by circumstantial evidence. Shuler v. State, Fla. 1961, 132 So.2d 7. The evidence herein clearly establishes the corpus delicti of the offense of grand larceny. As alluded to above, upon being hired by Atlantic, appellant was charged with the responsibility of making all deposits of cash receipts, taken in through the company's cash register, to its account in the bank, as well as with the company's bookkeeping and accounting.