PETER BELLINGER, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a conviction for assault with intent to commit rape, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict and that any initial record deficiencies were cured.
Yes, the jury's verdict was supported by sufficient evidence, and the initial record deficiencies were cured. Therefore, the conviction is affirmed.
“Without rehearsing it here we have carefully considered the evidence furnished by the record, and we can not say that the verdict is so unsupported thereby, or is so at variance therewith, as that it would be proper for this court to disturb it.”
Reasoning for upholding the jury's verdict as supported by the evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff in error was convicted of assault with intent to commit rape. Initially, the record did not explicitly show the defendant's presence, ar…
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
Taylor, C. J.:
The plaintiff in error was tried and convicted at the Spring term, 1897, of the Circuit Court of Liberty county of the crime of assault with intent to commit rape, and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment in the penitentiary, and seeks reversal by writ of error. There are five assignments of error. The first four •of them are predicated upon the failure of the transcript of the record to show the personal presence of the defendant at the trial, his arraignment, his plea, the swearing of the jury and the verdict; but these assignments of error have all been rendered nugatory by a suggestion of diminution in the record and by supplying the omitted entries from the records of the •court below through the writ of certiorari issued for that purpose.
The only remaining assignment of error is the refusal to grant the motion for new trial upon the . ground that the verdict is contrary to, and not supported by, the evidence. Without rehearsing it here we have carefully considered the evidence furnished by the record, and we can not say that the verdict is so unsupported thereby, or is so at variance therewith, as that it would be proper for this court to disturb it. If the jury believed the evidence of the prosecuting witnesses, it was ample to sustain the conviction. The credibility of witnesses is within the exclusive domain of the jury, and we can not question the correctness of their finding upon it. No error being found in the record, the judgment of the court below is hereby affirmed.