A. B. CHRISTIE, 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 reversed a rape conviction, finding that the jury's verdict was likely influenced by factors outside the evidence due to contradictory and unreasonable testimony.
The court held that the testimony presented was so contradictory and inconsistent with reason that the jury's verdict was likely influenced by considerations outside the record.
“This Court is reluctant to reverse the finding of a jury when approved by the trial court but in this case the record has been carefully examined and the testimony is so contradictory in its terms and much of it so inconsistent with reason and out of harmony with the conduct of normal human beings we are impelled to the conclusion that in reaching its verdict the.jury was influenced by considerations outside the record.”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for reversing the jury's verdict, highlighting the contradictory nature of the testimony.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff in error was indicted and convicted for rape in the Circuit Court of Orange County, resulting in a life imprisonment sentence. The victi…
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 Conflicting Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
Plaintiff in error was indicted and convicted for rape in the Circuit Court of Orange County. A judgment of life imprisonment was imposed and writ of error taken to this Court. A full statement of the case will be found in Christie v. State, 94 Fla. 469, 114 So. R. 450.
This Court is reluctant to reverse the finding of a jury when approved by the trial court but in this case the record has been carefully examined and the testimony is so contradictory in its terms and much of it so inconsistent with reason and out of harmony with the conduct of normal human beings we are impelled to the conclusion that in reaching its verdict the.jury was influenced by considerations outside the record. The testimony of the alleged victim of the assault as to material facts in the former trial is also at variance with her testimony as to the-same facts in the instant trial. A discussion of the assignments of error would serve no useful purpose. The judgment is reversed and a new trial awarded.
Reversed.
Terrell, C. J., and Whitfield, Strum and Buford, j. J., concur. Ellis and Brown, J. J., dissent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Douglass v. State, 135 Fla. 199 (Fla. 1938)…in the trial of this case, so much transpired that was out of harmony with proper procedure and so inconsistent with processes of normal human beings that we are impelled to the conclusion that justice demands a new trial. [*201] Christie v. State, 97 Fla. 985, 122 So. 528; Smith v. State, 101 Fla. 1066, 132 So. 840; Troop, et al., v. State, 98 Fla. 385, 123 So. 811. ’ The application for leave to apply for writ of coram nobis is denied, the case is reversed and a new trial awarded. Reversed. Whitfield…
Authorities Cited
- Christie v. State, 94 Fla. 469 (Fla. 1927)