E. R. SKIFF, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
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 a statutory offense, finding the evidence regarding the victim's chastity insufficient and potentially contradictory.
No, the evidence was not convincing, and there was substantial evidence to the contrary, including newly discovered evidence presented by the defense.
“The previous chaste character of the alleged victim is a material fact to be proved.”
Establishes a key element of the statutory offense.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff in error was convicted of a statutory offense. A key element of the offense was the previous chaste character of the alleged victim. The…
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 Newly Discovered Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
The plaintiff in error was convicted of the statutory offense denounced by section 5409 R. G. S., 7552 C. G. L.
The previous chaste character of the alleged victim is a material fact to be proved. The evidence in the instant ease of the previous chastity of the alleged victim is far from convincing. In fact, the record discloses much convincing evidence of her previous unchaste character and in the motion for new trial, one ground of which was the existence of newly discovered evidence, the defendant in the court below presented the affidavits of three persons in which further proof of her unchaste character is portrayed.
We are convinced that justice demands a new trial.
The judgment will be reversed upon authority of the opinions and judgments in the cases of Nims v. State, 70 Fla. 530, 70 Sou. 565; Fuller v. State, 92 Fla. 873, 110 Sou. 528; Ming v. State, 89 Fla. 280, 103 Sou. 618; Platt v. State, 65 Fla. 253, 61 Sou. 502; Townsend vs. State, 95 Fla. 139, 116 Sou. 7; Coker vs. State, 83 Fla. 672, 93 Sou. 176; Knowles vs. State, 86 Fla. 270, 97 Sou. 716; Davis vs. State, 76 Fla. 179, 79 Sou. 450.
It is so ordered.
Buford, C.J., and Whitfield, Terrell and Brown, J.J., concur.
Davis, J., disqualified.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Delbert Lee Tibbs v. State, 397 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 1981)…s’ guilt....” 113 Fla. at 302, 151 So. at 509. Again, a close reading of the case leads us to think that Woodward’s guilt was not established beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. The district court also relied upon Skiff v. State, 107 Fla. 90, 144 So. 323 (1932), and Fuller v. State, 92 Fla. 873, 110 So. 528 (1926). In Skiff, the Court reversed a rape conviction because the requisite evidence of the victim’s character was unconvincing, explaining that “[t]he previous chaste character of…
-
Lowe v. State, 154 Fla. 730 (Fla. 1944)…rime, then, and under these conditions and circumstances, it becomes the duty of this Court to reverse the cause for a new trial. See Stephens v. State, 140 Fla. 163, 191 So. 294; Reed v. State, 137 Fla. 768, 189 So. 21; Skiff v. State, 107 Fla. 90, 144 So. 323; Nims v. State, 70 Fla. 530, 70 So. 565; Fuller v. State, 92 Fla. 973, 110 So. 528; Ming v. State, 89 Fla. 280, 103 So. 618; Platt v. State, 65 Fla. 253, 61 So. 502; Townsend v. State, 95 Fla. 139, 116 So. 7; Coker v. State, 83 Fla. 672, 93 So. 176;…
-
Sosa v. The Honorable Oliver C. Maxwell, 234 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)…blish the essential facts necessary to constitute the crime, then, and under these conditions and circumstances, it becomes the duty of this Court to reverse the cause for a new trial.” (Emphasis supplied.) In Skiff v. State, 1932, 107 Fla. 90, 91, 144 So. 323, the court put it thusly: “The evidence in the instant case * * * is far from convincing. * * * “We are convinced that justice demands a new trial.” The Florida Supreme Court spoke quite clearly in Fuller v. State, 1926, 92 Fla. 873, 110 So. 528:…
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
- 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)
- Graham v. Graham, 79 So. 450 (Ala. 1918)