WILLIAM YOUNG, 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.
William Young appeals his conviction for assault with intent to commit rape, challenging the trial court's overruling of his motion for a new trial. The Florida Supreme Court affirms the conviction, finding no reversible error in the trial court's handling of jury selection objections, the state attorney's inflammatory language during closing argument, or the sufficiency of the evidence.
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that: (1) assertions of facts in a motion for a new trial are not self-verifying and require support in the record; (2) arguments and comments of counsel are subject to the trial court's discretion, and an appellate court will not interfere unless clear abuse is shown, which was not demonstrated here given the trial judge's correction; and (3) when a trial court denies a motion for a new trial and evidence supports the verdict, an appellate court should not disturb it absent showing of improper jury influence.
“The assertions of facts contained as grounds of a motion for new trial are not self-verifying before an appellate court, and unless the truth of such assertions is elsewhere properly disclosed by the record, an appellate court cannot consider assignments of error predicated thereon.”
Establishes the standard that factual assertions in motions for new trial must be supported by record evidence to be considered on appeal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliam Young was convicted of assault with intent to commit rape. At trial, Young presented a female witness in his defense. During closing argument,…
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
Shackleford, J.
William Young seeks relief from a conviction of the crime of assault with intent to commit rape. Only one error is assigned, which is based upon the overruling of the motion for a new trial. The first ground thereof complained of improper conduct upon the part of the State Attorney in the selection of the jury for the trial of the defendant, but we cannot consider it for the reason that it has no basis in the transcript, as no such facts of which complaint is made appear therein. Smith v. State, 65 Fla. 56, 61 South. Rep. 120, and Mathis v. State, decided here at the present term. As we held in Smith v. State, 57 Fla. 24, 48 South. Rep. 744, “The assertions of facts contained as grounds of a motion for new trial are not self-verifying before an appellate court, and unless the truth of such assertions is elsewhere properly disclosed by the record, an appellate court cannot consider assignments of error predicated thereon.” Also see Noble v. State, 68 Fla. 1, 66 South. Rep. 153.
The second ground of the motion relates to certain language used by the State Attorney in his argument to the jury, wherein he referred to one of the witnesses who had testified on behalf of the defendant as “that lying woman,” to which language the defendant seasonably objected and duly excepted to the adverse ruling of the court. This ground of the motion is also based upon the following language used by the State Attorney in the further progress of his argument, referring to the same witness, “miserable, spying bitch,” to^ which language the defendant also objected, upon which objection the court did not rule but stated to the State Attorney that there was no testimony as to the character of such witness and that such comment was improper. As we held in Carter v. State, 68 Fla. 143, 66 South. Rep. 1000, “The arguments and comments of counsel in the progress of a trial before a jury are controllable in the judicial discretion of the trial court, and an appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of such discretion, unless a clear abuse thereof has been made to appear.” Also see our discussion in Putnal v. State, 56 Fla. 86, 47 South. Rep. 864; Adams v. State, 54 Fla. 1, 45 South. Rep. 494; Clinton v. State, 53 Fla. 98, 43 South. Rep. 312, 12 Ann. Cas.
150. In view of the character of the testimony and the fact that the trial judge informed the State Attorney that his comment upon the character of such witness was improper, we are not prepared to declare that a clear abuse of judicial discretion has been made to appear. We would call especial attention to what we said upon this point in Clinton v. State, supra.
The remaining grounds of the motion question the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. No useful purpose would be accomplished by setting forth or discussing the evidence adduced. As we held in Davis v. State, 68 Fla. 81, 66 South. Rep. 429, following prior decisions of this court, “When the trial court concurs in the verdict rendered by a jury by denying the motion for a new trial, and there is evidence to support it, an appellate court should refuse to disturb it, in the absence of any showing that the jurors must have been improperly influenced by considerations outside the evidence.”
The judgment must be affirmed.
Cockrell, Whitfield and Ellis, JJ., concur. Taylor, C. J., absent on account of illness.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Henderson v. State, 94 Fla. 318 (Fla. 1927)…tant duty and responsibility imposed upon him, and his control over the arguments of counsel will not be disturbed by an appellate court unless a clear abuse of judicial discretion is shown. Carter v. State, 68 Fla. 143, 66 So. 1000; Young v. State, 70 Fla. 211, 70 So. 19. But the contention of counsel for plaintiff in error that the recital above mentioned in the motion for new trial is sufficient to get the various objections to the argument of the State Attorney before us for review is a mistaken one.…
-
Rowe v. State, 87 Fla. 17 (Fla. 1924)…ailure of defendants to testify,” the evil done by the State’s counsel in commenting, in violation of the statute upon the failure of the defendants to testify, was cured. In support of this proposition, there are cited the cases of Young v. State, 70 Fla. 211, 70 South. Rep. 19; Lampkin v. State ,70 Fla. 448, 70 South. Rep. 440; Landrum v. State, 79 Fla. 189, 84 South. Rep. 535. These cases are not applicable to the matter under consideration because they relate to alleged improper remarks' by counsel, o…
-
Nickels v. State, 86 Fla. 208 (Fla. 1923)…dant when it rests upon the ground of newly discovered evidence. See Jones v. State, 35 Fla. 289, 17 South. Rep. 284. All the necessary facts should be supported by affidavits. See Thompson v. State, 58 Fla. 106, 50 South. Rep. 507; Young v. State, 70 Fla. 211, 70 South. Rep. 19. The contention that Section 2810, Revised General Statutes, 1920, Section 1608, General Statutes, 1906, does not apply because there was no jury trial in this case and therefore no verdict, is without merit. The purpose of the s…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Buck Clinton and Edward Clinton v. State, 53 Fla. 98 (Fla. 1907)
- Putnal v. State, 56 Fla. 86 (Fla. 1908)
- Noble v. State, 68 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1914)
- Adams v. State, 54 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1907)
- Collin Smith v. State, 65 Fla. 56 (Fla. 1913)
- Smith v. State, 57 Fla. 24 (Fla. 1909)
- Carter v. State, 68 Fla. 143 (Fla. 1914)
- Davis v. State, 68 Fla. 81 (Fla. 1914)