JIM GAVIN, 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 affirmed a conviction for unlawful carnal intercourse, holding that the evidence, though unusual, was sufficient to support the jury's verdict.
Yes, the evidence, despite appearing unusual, was sufficient to support the jury's verdict.
“The sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict is the only question presented here for our consideration, plaintiff in error contending that the evidence of the prosecutrix being all the evidence that was offered to prove the charge against him was unreasonable and showed conclusively a “frame up” against him.”
This quote outlines the sole issue on appeal and the appellant's argument regarding the evidence.
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 convicted of unlawful carnal intercourse with an unmarried female under eighteen years of age and sentenced to ten years in…
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 Sufficiency Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
Plaintiff in error was indicted, tried and convicted in Okaloosa County of having unlawful carnal intercourse with an unmarried female of previous chaste character under the age of eighteen years. A sentence of ten years in the State penitentiary was imposed. A new trial was denied and writ of error taken to the judgment. The sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict is the only question presented here for our consideration, plaintiff in error contending that the evidence of the prosecutrix being all the evidence that was offered to prove the charge against him was unreasonable and showed conclusively a “frame up” against him.
We have examined the record, and while the evidence does not in all its aspects conform to reason, as we understand that term where applied to a situation like the one presénted here, we think it warrants the verdict and there is no showing that the jury was influenced by considerations outside the evidence.
Affirmed.
Terrell, C. J., and Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur. Whitfield, P. J., and Buford, J., concur in the opinion and judgment.