JOSEPH H. BELL, 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 reversed a conviction for assault with intent to rape, finding the evidence insufficient to prove the required intent. The court emphasized that the intent must demonstrate a determination to complete the rape regardless of resistance.
No, the evidence was insufficient to prove the required intent. The court held that the State failed to demonstrate that the accused's determination was to consummate the rape regardless of resistance and want of consent.
“the intent in such cases must be shown by the State to have so possessed the accused that his determination was to consummate the rape regardless of resistance and want of consent.”
establishes the legal standard for intent in assault with intent to rape cases.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJoseph H. Bell was convicted in the circuit court for St. Lucie county of assault with intent to rape and sentenced to five years in prison. The defen…
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 Assault With Intent To Commit Rape cases and more on FLexlaw
[*7] Shackleford, J.
Joseph H. Bell was convicted in the circuit court for St. Lucie county of an assault with intent to rape and sentenced to five years in the State prison.
Eighteen errors are assigned, several of which are abandoned. We shall not undertake to discuss them in detail. The first five are based upon the overruling of the motion to quash the indictment, but they are not properly before us for consideration, since such motion and the ruling of the court thereon do not appear in the record proper, but are found only in the bill of exceptions. Tip-ton v. State, 53 Fla. 69, 43 South. Rep. 684, wherein prior decisions will be found cited.
A motion for a new trial was made, which questioned the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. The denial of this motion forms the basis of one of the assignments. A careful reading of all the testimony, which we shall not attempt to set out, or even to summarize, convinces us that the court erred in refusing to grant such motion. We held in Hunter v. State, 29 Fla. 486, 10 South. Rep. 730, that “the intent in such cases must be shown by the State to have so possessed the accused that his determination was to consummate the rape regardless of resistance and want of consent.” Also see Clark v. State, 56 Fla. 46, 47 South. Rep. 481, and Rushton v. State, 58 Fla. 94, 50 South. Rep. 486. We think that the evidence fails to come up to this requirement. For this reason the judgment must be reversed and the case remanded.
Whitfield, C. J., and Cockrell, J., concur;
Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hart v. State, 92 Fla. 809 (Fla. 1926)…hereon forms part of the record proper and is out of place in a bill of exceptions. See Raines v. State, 42 Fla. 141, 28 South. Rep. 57; Olds v. State, 44 Fla. 452, 33 South. Rep. 296; Johnson v. State, 51 Fla. 44, 40 South. Rep. 678; Bell v. State, 61 Fla. 6, 54 South. Rep. 799; Watkins v. State, 69 Fla. 355, 68 South. Rep. 176; Ward v. State, 83 Fla. 311, 91 South. Rep. 189. The sufficiency of the indictment, therefore, as no fun [*811] damental error appears in it, will not be considered. Although th…
-
Ward v. State, 83 Fla. 311 (Fla. 1922)
-
Morgan v. Marshall, 78 Fla. 59 (Fla. 1919)…constitute part of the record proper have no place in the bill of exceptions, and when evidenced to the appellate court only by the bill of exceptions, such court can not consider assignments of error predicated upon rulings thereon. Bell v. State, 61 Fla. 6, 54 South. Rep. 799; Tipton v. State, 53 Fla. 69, 43 South. Rep. 684. The judgment should be affirmed. [*64] Per Curiam. — The record in this cause having been considered by this court, and the foregoing opinion prepared under Chapter 7837, Acts of…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Orum Rushton v. State, 58 Fla. 94 (Fla. 1909)
- Cæsar Hunter v. State, 29 Fla. 486 (Fla. 1892)
- Tipton v. State, 53 Fla. 69 (Fla. 1907)
- Clark v. State, 56 Fla. 46 (Fla. 1908)