JAMES MACK, 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.
James Mack was convicted of rape and sentenced to life imprisonment with a recommendation of mercy. On writ of error, he challenged various evidentiary rulings, but the Florida Supreme Court affirmed his conviction, finding ample evidence to support the verdict and that any technical errors were harmless.
The conviction is affirmed. Although there may have been technical errors in the trial court's evidentiary rulings, they cannot warrant reversal because ample evidence supports the verdict and the errors could not have been harmful in view of the entire proceedings.
“As there is ample evidence to sustain the verdict and as the rulings complained of could not have been harmful in view of the entire proceedings, the technical errors if any will not warrant a reversal.”
Establishes the harmless error standard applied by the court—even if technical errors existed, they do not warrant reversal when ample evidence supports the verdict.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMack was convicted of rape. The victim testified that Mack knocked her down, dragged her into bushes, and choked her until she lost consciousness. She…
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 Extrajudicial Confession cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
Mack was sentenced to life imprisonment on a conviction of rape with a recommendation to mercy. On writ of error it is contended that errors were committed in various rulings in admitting and rejecting testimony. As there is ample evidence to sustain the verdict and as the rulings complained of could not have been harmful in view of the entire proceedings, the technical errors if any will not warrant a reversal. Stone v. State, 71 Fla. 514, 71 South. Rep. 634.
The accused testified that he did not commit rape, but there was testimony of a confession by him that he did rob the victim, taking money from her stocking. The confession was extra judicial and a preponderance of the evidence shows it was voluntary. There is positive testimony of the victim identifying the accused and that “he knocked me down and dragged me in the bushes.” “He just choked me until I lost consciousness.- I don’t know what happened after that.” He was “on top of me choking me. That’s all I remember.” “Q. Did he have intercourse with you?” “A. I don’t know. I was unconscious. I don’t know anything about it.” “I am sure that (accused) is the man because I had a good view.of his face when he had me on the ground. He was on top of me.” “It was not dark.” “Q. You can’t say that he committed rape upon you then because you were unconscious?” “A. Yes, I was unconscious.” “My clothes were up when the people found me.” “I was down on my back.” “Q. If he had intercourse with you, did you consent to it?” /‘A. Why certainly not.” “Q. If he did it, did he do it by force and against your will ?”' “A. He certainly did.” The jury were warranted in finding from the testimony of the victim and the corroborative evidence which was adduced as to her-physical condition just after the alleged-assault, that rape was committed. A careful consideration of the entire record discloses that the defendant’s rights were dutifully guarded at the trial by his counsel, and that no errors were committed that prejudice the rights of the accused. Mack v. State, 54 Fla. 55, 44 South. Rep. 706. The conviction was had in due course of law and the judgment is affirmed.
Taylor, Shackleford and Ellis, JJ., concur. Browne, C. J. dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nickels v. State, 106 So. 479 (Fla. 1925)…. Rep. 133. The testimony of the physician in this instance is of slight value in determining the question of penetration. But while medical testimony is always desirable, it is not indispensable in establishing that question. Mack v. State, [*685] 73 Fla. 476, 74 South. Rep. 522; State v. Cardwell, 90 Kan. 606,135 Pac. Rep. 597, L. R. A. 1916 B, 745; Mora v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 167 S. W. Rep. 344; State v. Workman, 66 Wash. 292, 119 Pac. Rep. 751; Harman v. Territory, 15 Okla. 147, 79 Pac. Rep. 765; St…
Authorities Cited
- Stone v. State, 71 Fla. 514 (Fla. 1916)
- Dock Mack v. State, 54 Fla. 55 (Fla. 1907)