JIMMY HUDSON, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Jimmy Hudson appeals his conviction for sexual battery under Florida Statute § 794.011(5), arguing insufficient evidence, improper denial of a psychological examination for the victim, and failure to instruct on certain lesser included offenses. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding substantial evidence supported the verdict and no abuse of discretion by the trial judge.
The jury verdict was supported by substantial competent evidence; the trial judge did not abuse discretion in denying the psychological examination motion after finding the victim competent to testify; and Hudson waived the jury instruction issue by failing to object at trial.
[1] A guilty verdict is supported by competent substantial evidence when the victim's testimony is corroborated by other witnesses.
[2] A trial judge does not abuse discretion by denying a motion for a victim's psychological examination if the judge personally inquires into and is satisfied with the victi…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“there was substantial competent evidence including the testimony of the victim and the corroborating testimony of the other witnesses from which the jury could have found that Hudson committed sexual battery upon the victim”
Establishes the evidentiary standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence on appeal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHudson was convicted of sexual battery committed by using physical force not likely to cause serious personal injury. The victim testified about the i…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Competency To Testify cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant, Jimmy Hudson, appeals his conviction for sexual battery committed by using physical force not likely to cause serious personal injury. [Section 794.011(5), Florida Statutes (1977).]1
Hudson primarily argues that the jury’s guilty verdict is not supported by competent substantial evidence.
Our review of the record reveals that there was substantial competent evidence including the testimony of the victim and the corroborating testimony of the other witnesses from which the jury could have found that Hudson committed sexual battery upon the victim. See Berezovsky v. State, 335 So. 2d 592 (Fla.3d DCA 1976) and cases cited therein.
Hudson secondly argues that the trial judge erred in denying defense counsel’s motion that the victim be required to submit to a psychological examination before being permitted to testify at the trial because of the victim’s alleged history of psychiatric disorder. The trial judge conducted a personal examination of the victim to determine the victim’s competency to testify. After the inquiry, the judge was satisfied as to the victim’s competency. Thus, we find no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge in denying the motion for psychological examination. See Florida Power and Light Co. v. Robinson, 68 So. 2d 406, 413 (Fla.1953); Wilk v. State, 217 So. 2d 610 (Fla.3d DCA 1969); Dinkins v. State, 244 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971).
Hudson additionally contends that the trial judge erred in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offenses of aggravated assault and attempt to commit aggravated assault.2
Defense counsel, although having been given the opportunity, failed to object to the instructions which the judge said he would render to the jury. In fact, counsel stated he had no objections. Thus, Hudson is precluded from raising this issue as error for the first time on appeal. See Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.390(d); McCaskill v. State, 344 So. 2d 1276 (Fla.1977); Alford v. State, 280 So. 2d 479 (Fla.3d DCA 1973).
We have also considered Hudson’s remaining points on appeal and find no merit therein.
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Affirmed.
. “(5) A person who commits sexual battery upon a person over the age of 11 years, without that person’s consent, and in the process thereof uses physical force and violence not likely to cause serious personal injury shall be guilty of a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.-084.”
. The trial judge did instruct on the lesser included offenses of attempted sexual battery, battery and assault.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- McCASKILL v. State, 344 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 1977)
- Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Robinson, 68 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 1953)
- Dinkins v. State, 244 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Reuben R. Alford v. State, 280 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Jiri Berezovsky v. State, 335 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Wilk v. State, 217 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)