A. M. ALFONSO, 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.
Alfonso was convicted of unlawful carnal intercourse with an unmarried woman under 18 years of age. The Florida Supreme Court reversed his conviction because the trial judge's jury instructions omitted the essential element that the prosecuting witness was unmarried at the time of the alleged offense, and the evidence on this point was indefinite.
The trial court committed reversible error by omitting from the jury charge the essential element that the person with whom the defendant had carnal intercourse was unmarried at the time of the offense. This omission was particularly harmful given the indefinite nature of the evidence on the witness's marital status.
“The State is required under the laws of this State to prove every material allegation of the information to your satisfaction and beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Establishes the State's burden of proof; the court's charge correctly stated this general principle.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAlfonso was charged with statutory rape—unlawful carnal intercourse with an unmarried person of previous chaste character under age 18. At trial, ther…
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 Harmful Error cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
This writ of error was taken to a judgment of conviction on a charge of the statutory offense of unlawful carnal intercourse with an unmarried person of previous chaste character, who at the time of such intercourse is under the age of eighteen years. At the trial there was no direct and positive evidence that the prosecuting witness was unmarried at the time of the alleged carnal intercourse with her, and the evidence from which such an inference might be drawn, is very indefinite.
The court charged the jury as follows:
The State is required under the laws of this State to prove every material allegation of the information to your satisfaction and beyond a reasonable doubt. The material allegations in the information are that within Dade County and within two years before the filing of the affidavit — the particular day does not make any difference — that this defendant had carnal sexual intercourse with this prosecuting witness, Irma Richardson, and that she was of previous chaste character and under the age of eighteen years. Those are the essentials in the case that you must believe the State has proved to your satisfaction. If you believe that she is under the age of eighteen years, if you believe that she was of previous chaste character, and if you believe further that this man had sexual intercourse with her within two years before the filing of the indictment or information, then it would be your duty to convict him. If you have a reasonable doubt upon any of those points you should give him the benefit of that doubt and acquit him.
This charge wholly omits as an ingredient of the statutory offense charged, the essential element that the person with whom the defendant is alleged to have had unlawful carnal intercourse was unmarried at the time the offense was committed; and as this omission was not corrected by any other charge given, it was harmful error, particularly in view of other matters shown by the record including the indefinite nature of the evidence as to whether the prosecuting witness was married or unmarried at the time the alleged offense was committed upon her by the defendant.
The judgment of conviction is reversed for a new trial.
Terrell, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (33 total)
-
Am. Bakeries Co. v. City of Haines City, 131 Fla. 790 (Fla. 1938)…r, 79 Fla. 290, 84 So. 61; City of St. Petersburg v. Pinellas Power Co., 87 Fla. 315, 100 So. 509; City of Apalachicola v. State, 93 Fla. 921, 112 So. 618; Abell v. Town of Boynton, 95 Fla. 984, 117 So. 507; West v. Town of Lake Placid, 97 Fla. 127, 120 So. 361; State v. City of Miami, 101 Fla. 292, 134 So. 608; City of Lake Alfred v. Lawless, 102 Fla 84, 135 So. 895; Flamingo Park Warehouse Co. v. Solberg, 113 Fla. 45, 151 So. 281; Critchlow v. Maryland Casualty Co., 116 Fla. 226, 156 So. 440; Broward v.…
-
The City of Winter Haven v. A. M. Klemm & Son, 132 Fla. 334 (Fla. 1938)…n though there be procedural or other defects, but no violation of controlling organic law, in the creation or acquisition of such rights. See State v. City of Cedar Keys, 122 Fla. 454, 165 So. 672. See also West v. Town of Lake Placid, 97 Fla. 127, 120 So. 361. But if a command or prohibition of the Constitution is violated in the creation or production of the subjects of property or in the acquisition of interest therein, such interests are not rights that are intended by the Constitution to be secured,…1 / 5
-
Mayo v. The Polk Co., 124 Fla. 534 (Fla. 1936)…ation and classification complained of was within the power of the Legislature to make. Cahoon v. Smith, 99 Fla. 1174, 128 So. 632 (Reversed for other reasons 283 U. S. 553, 51 Sup. Ct. 582, 75 L. Ed. 1264); West v. Town of Lake Placid, 97 Fla. 127, 120 So. 361; State v. Walter Bowen & Co., 86 Wash. 23, 149 Pac. [*542] 330; Northern Cedar Co. v. French, 131 Wash. 394, 230 Pac. 837. This Court is committed to the doctrine that the citrus fruit industry is of such proportions and is affected by a public int…
Previewing 3 of 33 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence