GEORGE THOMAS
v.
STATE
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 assault with intent to commit rape, finding the evidence presented by the State was insufficient to support the jury's verdict.
No, the evidence was so unsubstantial and unsatisfactory that it left the jury to speculate, thus a new trial is warranted.
“After a full and fair consideration of the evidence as shown by the record here the majority of this Court are of the opinion that justice demands a reversal of the judgment because the evidence upon which the State relied for conviction is so unsubstantial and unsatisfactory as to have left the jury to grope in the realm of guess work and speculation to return a verdict against the defendant”
This quote establishes the Court's primary reason for reversal: the insufficiency and speculative nature of 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 was convicted of assault with intent to commit rape. The State's case relied on evidence that the Court found to be unsubstantial and un…
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 Conviction Reversal cases and more on FLexlaw
In this case the plaintiff was convicted of the crime of assault with intent to commit rape.
' After a full and fair consideration of the evidence as shown by the record here the majority of this Court are of the opinion that justice demands a reversal of the judgment because the evidence upon which the State relied for conviction is so unsubstantial and unsatisfactory as to have left the jury to grope in the realm of guess work and speculation to return a verdict against the defendant, and, therefore, on authority of the opinions and judgments in the cases of McNeil v. State, 104 Fla. 360, 139 Sou. 791, and Smith v. State, 101 Fla. 1066, 132 Sou. 840, and cases there *2cited, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for new trial.
So ordered.
Whitfield, C. J., and Ellis, Terrell, Brown, Buford, and Davis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Voelker v. Combined Ins. Co. of Am., 73 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 1954)…from a reading thereof. Courts are not authorized to write a new contract for the parties on the pretext of construing the terms thereof when the wording employed is plain, crystal clear and unambiguous. Goldsby v. Gulf Life Ins. Co., 117 Fla. 889, 158 So. 502. See also the Mississippi case of Jackson Steam Laundry v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 156 Miss. 649, 126 So. 478, and Kansas City Life Insurance Co. v. Freeman, 5 Cir., 120 F. 2d 106. Since the evidence is uncontro-verted that there were no visib…
-
Rigel v. Nat'l Cas. Co., 76 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 1954)…ermination of the second point, if we decide the first point in the affirmative. We acknowledge the rules that if the language is plain and unambiguous, there is no occasion for the Court to construe it, Goldsby v. Gulf Life Ins. Co., 117 Fla. 889, 158 So. 502; that if uncertainty is present, the instrument should be construed against the insurer, Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Cartmel, 87 Fla. 495, 100 So. 802, 35 A.L.R. 1013; that the Court should not extend strictness in construction to the point of ad…
-
United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Morejon, 338 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…ending the coverage afforded beyond that plainly set forth in the insurance contract. See for example, Aetna Casualty & Surety Company v. Cartmel, 87 Fla. 495, 100 So. 802, 35 A.L.R. 1013 (1924); Goldsby v. Gulf Life Insurance Company, 117 Fla. 889, 158 So. 502 (1935). There is no basis in law or in fact for the court to rewrite the contract of the parties or to extend the coverage of the personal catastrophe liability policy issued to Rebozo to the judgment against a non-insured corporate entity, Washwel…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Smith v. State, 132 So. 840 (Fla. 1931)
- Odie McNeil v. State, 104 Fla. 360 (Fla. 1932)
- Yoder v. Maddox, 104 Fla. 354 (Fla. 1932)