WILLIAM ATKINS, 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 statutory rape, holding that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the jury's verdict despite conflicting testimony.
Yes, the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict.
“while there are conflicts in the testimony, there is ample testimony to warrant a conviction”
Reasoning for upholding the jury's verdict despite conflicting evidence.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliam Atkins was convicted of carnal intercourse with an unmarried female under eighteen years of age and sentenced to one year in prison. He appeal…
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 Sufficiency Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Shackleford, C. J.
William Atkins was convicted of the statutory offense of having carnal intercourse with an unmarried female under eighteen years of age and sentenced to confinement in the State Prison for the period of one year. This judgment and sentence he seeks to have reviewed here by writ of error. The sole assignment urged before us is based upon the overruling of the motion for a new trial, which questions the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. We find from the transcript that, while there are conflicts in the testimony, there is ample testimony to warrant a conviction and there is nothing whatever to show that the jurors were not. governed by the evidence in arriving at their verdict. Applying the test, which we have admitted and applied in a number of cases, as to whether or not the jurors acting as reasonable men could have found the verdict, we find that this question must be answered in the affirmative. See Smith v. State, 65 Fla. 56, 61 South. Rep. 120, and cases there cited. Also see McClellan v. State, decided here at the present term.
Judgment affirmed.
Taylor, Cockrell, Hocker and Whitfield, J. J., concur.