MACK EDWARDS AND JAMES SMITH, ALIAS JIM BOY SMITH
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 affirmed the conviction of Mack Edwards and James Smith for breaking and entering with intent to commit rape, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict despite claims of intoxication.
Yes, the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict and the judgment. The defendants' intoxication was not raised as a defense at trial, and the jury was entitled to believe the State's witnesses over the defendants' conflicting accounts.
“We find the evidence sufficient to support the verdict and judgment.”
Establishes the court's conclusion regarding the sufficiency of the evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMack Edwards and James Smith were convicted of breaking and entering a building with the intent to commit rape. Evidence presented at trial indicated …
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 Felonious Intent cases and more on FLexlaw
The plaintiffs in error were convicted of the offense of breaking and entering the building, the property of another, with intent to commit a felony, to-wit, rape.
It is contended in the brief filed that the evidence is not sufficient to establish the existence of the felonious intent charged; that the accused were too drunk to be capable of forming the intent.
We find the evidence sufficient to support the verdict and judgment. There is evidence in the record to the effect that the defendants were drunk, but the record shows that they did not make this defense in the court below. They, on the trial, took the stand and each testified as to what took place at the time of the alleged offense. Neither thep claimed not to have known what happened but each told an entirely different story from that told by the State’s witnesses. The jury evidently believed the State’s witnesses.
The judgment must be affirmed.
So ordered.
Affirnied.
Ellis, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
*694Whitfield, C. J., and Brown and Davis, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Griffin v. State, 124 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)…witnesses from the trial and the making of exceptions to the rule when invoked is within the sound discretion of the trial court. A witness who has violated the rule may, in the exercise of that discretion, be permitted to testify. Edwards v. State, 120 Fla. 693, 163 So. 25; Nelson v. State, 127 Fla. 677, 173 So. 841; Holder v. State, 136 Fla. 880, 187 So. 781. We are unable to perceive how the testimony of witness McFarland, upon the very narrow point about which she had knowledge, could have been aided or…