BILL WILLIAMS, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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.
Bill Williams was convicted of assault with intent to commit rape based on testimony from four state witnesses and no defense evidence. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the conviction, finding the evidence insufficient to support even a simple assault conviction, much less the serious felony charged.
The court reversed the conviction and awarded a new trial, finding the evidence wholly insufficient to warrant a verdict of guilt—indeed, the court found insufficient evidence even for a simple assault conviction.
“in a case of this character, where the penalty is so severe under our statute, there should be at least some evidence of guilt to warrant the sentence of the law”
Establishes the court's standard that severe penalties require at least some evidentiary support, even when deferring to juries generally
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn October 9, 1882, Bill Williams was indicted in Alachua County for assault with intent to ravish a female named A.B. At trial in January 1883, the S…
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 Verdict Contrary To Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Ms. Justice YanYalkenburgh
delivered the opinion of the court:
At the January Term of the Circuit Court, held in and for the county of Alachua, in the month of January, A. D. 1883, the plaintiff in error, Bill Williams, was indicted. Such indictment charged that the plaintiff in error, “ on the ninth day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eighty-two, with force and arms, in the county of Alachua aforesaid, in and upon one A. B., a female, feloniously and wilfully did make an assault with inteu ther, the said A. B., then and there feloniously to ravish,” &e.
' The defendant plead not guilty, and was tided at the same term of the court and was found guilty.
The counsel for the defendant then made a motion for a new trial, upon the ground that the verdict was contrary to the evidence, the law and the charge of the court. The court overruled his motion for a new trial, and the counsel for the defendant duly exeepted to such ruling of the court.
The defendant was sentenced to ten years imprisonment at hard labor in the State Prison. The Judge of the Circuit Court granted a writ of error, . arid the cause is now here in pursuance of such writ.
The errors assigned are as follows :
“Because the verdict of the jury was contrary to the evidence and 'the weight of the evidence.
“ Because there was no evidence upon which the verdict of the jury can be sustained.”
The Attorney-General moved here to dismiss the writ of error, for the reason that, not being a capital case, the Judge of the Circuit'Count had mo ¡power or 'authority'under the statutes to grant the same. [The Attorney-General an flounced at the .bar i’t was 'merely 'his purpose to have the practice settled, and that if the motion was granted a writ of error .might issue here returnable instanter.—Reporter.]
Chapter 1104, Laws 1861, provides “ that hereafter writs of error in capital cases in the Circuit Courts of this State shall be allowed only in the manner and upon the terms provided now by law for writs of error in cases of misdemeanors and crimes not capital: Provided, however, That the Judges of the several Circuit Courts shall have the same power in allowing or directing writs of error to issue in such cases as the Justices of the Supreme Court have.” warranto in the vacation, as well as in term time.”
The motion to dismiss this writ of error upon that ground is denied.
The record shows that four witnesses were called, and examined upon the part of the State to prove the alleged of-fences ; none were introduced upon the part of the defendant. We have carefully and critically examined this evidence, embodied in the record, and fail to find in it anything to warrant the verdict of the jury, not even sufficient to warrant a verdict of simple assault, much less a verdict of assault with intent to commit the heinous crime charged in the indictment.
As a general rule this court will not interfere with the verdict of a jury when there is evidence before them -which will justify their finding, but in a ease of this character, where the penalty is so severe under our statute, there should be at least some evidence of guilt to warrant the sentence of the law. Snowden vs. The State, 17 Fla., 386; Green vs. The State, 17 Fla., 671.
Judgment reversed and new trial awarded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Angus McDonald v. State, 56 Fla. 74 (Fla. 1908)…may be set aside by the appellate court. If it ap-pears from a consideration of all the evidence that the jury were not governed by it in rendering a verdict of guilty, a hew trial may be granted. John D. C. v. State, 16 Fla. 554; Williams v. State, 20 Fla. 391; Small v. State, 20 Fla. 780; Robinson v. State, 24 Fla. 358, 5 South. Rep. 6; Teal v. State, 43 Fla. 580, 31 South. Rep. 282; McNish v. State, 47 Fla. 66, 36 South. Rep. 175; Caldwell v. State, 50 Fla. 4, 39 South. Rep. 188; Baker v. State, 54 Fla.…
-
Turner Williams v. State, 58 Fla. 138 (Fla. 1909)
-
McCoggle v. State, 41 Fla. 525 (Fla. 1899)…the verdict was induced by influences outside of the evidence, an appellate court'can not properly upset the jury’s finding, or the trial judge’s refusal to disturb it on the motion made for new trial. Green v. State, 17 Fla. 669; Williams v. State, 20 Fla. 391; Browning v. State, 41 Fla. —, 26 South. Rep. 639. The fourth assignment of error is as follows: “The court erred in giving those portions of its charge marked B 2> 3> 4, 5 and 6, herewith filed marked 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.” These instructions were…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Snowden v. State, 17 Fla. 386 (Fla. 1879)