SMITH
v.
STATE
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 reversed a rape conviction due to contradictory and unreasonable evidence presented by the state. The victim's inconsistent testimonies and the unusual circumstances surrounding the alleged assault led the court to find the jury's verdict unsupported.
Yes, the evidence was so unreasonable and contradictory that it left the jury to speculate, requiring a reversal of the conviction.
“It is a well established general rule in this court that when the propriety of a verdict depends upon the credibility of conflicting testimony, and when the facts in evidence are complicated or contradictory, requiring a consideration of the character, integrity or probity of witnesses whose testimony it is necessary to come and weight, the verdict of the jury will not be set aside as against the weight of the evidence unless the evidence preponderates so strongly against the verdict that the court can not conclude that such verdict was the result of a due consideration of the evidence.”
Establishes the general rule regarding reviewing jury verdicts based on conflicting 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 defendant was convicted of rape, but the victim provided three different accounts of the incident. In one version, she claimed the defendant never…
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 Essential Element Of Offense cases and more on FLexlaw
In this case the defendant in the court below was convicted of rape and was recommended to the mercy of the court. The bill of exceptions presented some of the most unreasonable stories we have ever been called upon to consider. The record shows that the woman alleged to have been assaulted has sworn to three different stories about the matter. That she first swore before a Grand Jury investigating the case that the defendant never touched her at all. Before another Grand Jury she testified apparently very much as she did upon the trial except that before the Grand Jury she testified that while the crime was being committed she told the accused that she was *Page 1068 suffering with a headache and would like to get up and get some aspirin; that he allowed her to get up, go out on the porch and take the aspirin and return. This does not appear in her testimony before the trial jury and if it had there would doubtless have been no conviction.
It appears from the most favorable aspect of the State's case that the husband was present during the commission of the alleged offense, that he was wide awake and in possession of his faculties and supinely obeying the orders of the accused, who was unarmed. It further appears that such force as was alleged to have been used could have scarcely been effective on one not a willing victim.
In Troop vs. State, 98 Fla. 385, 123 So. 811, it was said:
"It is a well established general rule in this court that when the propriety of a verdict depends upon the credibility of conflicting testimony, and when the facts in evidence are complicated or contradictory, requiring a consideration of the character, integrity or probity of witnesses whose testimony it is necessary to come and weight, the verdict of the jury will not be set aside as against the weight of the evidence unless the evidence preponderates so strongly against the verdict that the court can not conclude that such verdict was the result of a due consideration of the evidence.
Exceptions to this rule, however, have been previously recognized by this Court in criminal cases where the evidence as to the identification of the accused as being the guilty party, or the evidence relied upon to establish some essential element of the offense was not satisfactory. See Nims vs. State, 70 Fla. 530, 70 So. 565; Fuller vs. State, 92 Fla. 873, 110 So. 528; Ming vs. State, 89 Fla. 280, 103 So. 618; Platt vs. State, *Page 1069 65 Fla. 253, 61 So. 502; Townsend vs. State, 95 Fla. 139, 93 So. 176; Knowles vs. State, 86 Fla. 270, 97 So. 716; Davis vs. State, 76 Fla. 179, 79 So. 450. "
Under authority of the opinion in that case, and those cited therein, we feel that justice demands a reversal of the judgment in this case, because the evidence upon which the State relied for a conviction is so unreasonable, contradictory, unsubstantial and unsatisfactory as to have left the jury to grope in the realm of guesswork and speculation to return a verdict against the defendant. It is so ordered.
Reversed.
WHITFIELD, ELLIS, TERRELL AND BROWN, J.J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Stewart v. State, 51 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 1951)…and the Courts of last resort throughout the country have condemned this kind of prosecution. Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 55 S.Ct. 629-633, 79 L.Ed. 1314, decided April 15, 1935; Smith v. State, 147 Fla. 191, 3 So. 2d 516; Smith v. State, 101 Fla. 1066, 132 So. 840; Oglesby v. State, 156 Fla. 481, 23 So. 2d 558; Deas v. State, 119 Fla. 839, 161 So. 729; Livingston v. State, 140 Fla. 749, 192 So. 327 and many others. It would seem trite to state that the reason the courts throughout the country ha…
-
Thomas v. State, 118 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1935)…to grope in the realm of guess work and speculation to return a verdict against the defendant, and, therefore, on authority of the opinions and judgments in the cases of McNeil v. State, 104 Fla. 360, 139 Sou. 791, and Smith v. State, 101 Fla. 1066, 132 Sou. 840, and cases there [*2] cited, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for new trial. So ordered. Whitfield, C. J., and Ellis, Terrell, Brown, Buford, and Davis, J. J., concur.…
-
Gaetano v. State, 273 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)…of fact where there is substantial, reasonable evidence in support of the verdict, notwithstanding the fact that the court would have reached a different conclusion. Substantial evidence means more than mere suspicion, Smith v. State, 101 Fla. 1066, 132 So. 840 (1931), and there must be evidence that proves every essential element of the offense charged. Hurley v. State, 43 So. 2d 179 (Fla.1949); Stewart v. State, 158 Fla. 753, 30 So. 2d 489 (1947); Smith v. State, supra. In the case sub judice, the defen…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fuller v. State, 92 Fla. 873 (Fla. 1926)
- Elbert Coker v. State, 83 Fla. 672 (Fla. 1922)
- Nims v. State, 70 Fla. 530 (Fla. 1915)
- Knowles v. State, 86 Fla. 270 (Fla. 1923)
- Platt v. State, 65 Fla. 253 (Fla. 1913)
- Reuben Davis and Rachel Smith v. State, 76 Fla. 179 (Fla. 1918)
- Ming v. State, 89 Fla. 280 (Fla. 1925)
- Townsend v. State, 95 Fla. 139 (Fla. 1928)
- Troop v. State, 98 Fla. 385 (Fla. 1929)
- Graham v. Graham, 79 So. 450 (Ala. 1918)