ALONZO COZART, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
The court held that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient for the jury to find the defendant sane beyond a reasonable doubt, despite expert testimony suggesting insanity.
The defendant was convicted of kidnapping, sexual battery, and aggravated assault. He appealed, arguing that the evidence raised reasonable doubt as t…
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 Legal Insanity cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Cozart appeals his conviction and sentence for kidnapping with intent to commit sexual battery, sexual battery and aggravated assault. He contends the evidence presented at trial raised a reasonable doubt as to his sanity at the time of the offense which the state failed to rebut, and therefore he was entitled to a judgment of acquittal by reason of insanity. We affirm.
There was testimony from lay witnesses at the trial which supported Cozart’s sanity. The victim of the sexual battery testified that Cozart acted like a “normal everyday person.” She also related that Cozart offered her a ring and bracelet for sex and when she refused, Cozart told her, “Well, you know, I can make you do it .... ” Though her testimony was somewhat contradictory, the other victim did testify that she thought Cozart “knew what he was doing.” Further, the opinions of the psychiatrists, who testified that Cozart was legally insane under the M’Naghten test, were cast in doubt by their cross-examination testimony. For instance, several of the psychiatrists who opined that Cozart was insane testified on cross that he knew what he was doing. One of the psychiatrists additionally testified that Cozart knew his conduct violated the law, knew it was legally wrong and that he would be arrested for it, and knew that he was forcing himself on the girls. There was also testimony that Cozart knew it was wrong to have a gun.
In sum, we conclude that the matter was properly submitted to the jury and cite Byrd v. State, 297 So. 2d 22 (Fla.1974), McClain v. State, 327 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). Accordingly, Cozart’s judgment and sentence is affirmed.
BOOTH, LARRY G. SMITH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sands v. State, 403 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…. Therefore, the trial court was correct in rejecting the motion for directed verdict. Byrd v. State, 297 So. 2d 22 (Fla.1974); Davis v. State, 319 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); McClain v. State, 327 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Cozart v. State, 399 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The State concedes error, at least in the sentencing on the unlawful possession of a firearm count while engaged in a criminal offense. We agree. See: State v. Hegstrom, 401 So. 2d 1343 (Fla.1981). Therefore, for the reasons ab…
-
Walsh v. State, 751 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…es, and no jury instruction on the insanity defense was required to be given. AFFIRMED. LAWRENCE and BROWNING, JJ., CONCUR. . See Crockham v. State, 723 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), rev. denied, 735 So. 2d 1284 (Fla.1999); Cozart v. State, 399 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Marshall v. State, 339 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), cert. dismissed, 354 So. 2d 982 (Fla.1977). See also Hall v. State, 568 So. 2d 882 (Fla.1990); Chestnut v. State, 538 So. 2d 820 (Fla.1989); Gurganus v. State, 451 So. 2d 81…
-
Tillman v. State, 407 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…und no merit in his defense. We think the trial court was clearly correct in rejecting appellant’s defense of insanity. Therefore, the judgment and sentence appealed should be affirmed. Bernhardt v. State, 288 So. 2d 490 (Fla.1974); Cozart v. State, 399 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); McClain v. State, 327 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Byrd v. State, 297 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 1974)
- McCLAIN v. State, 327 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Hilton Alexander Mullins v. State, 327 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)