GLENN GILCHRIST, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Glenn Gilchrist was convicted by jury of assault with intent to commit rape. On appeal, he challenged the sufficiency of evidence, arguing he voluntarily abandoned his assault attempt when he realized the victim would not consent. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the evidence supported conviction based on the intent element and the motive for abandonment.
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction because it supported the inference that appellant acted with the intent to force sexual relations regardless of consent, and abandoned his effort not out of noble motive but from fear for his own safety. The court also held that the newly discovered evidence was insufficient to warrant a new trial as a matter of law, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.
“the gravamen of this offense is the intent with which the assault is made; and the intent in such case must be shown to have so possessed the accused that his determination was to consummate the rape regardless of resistance and want of consent”
Establishes the essential legal element required for conviction—the specific intent to commit rape regardless of resistance or lack of consent
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was tried and convicted by jury for assault with intent to commit rape. He contended that he only sought to obtain the victim's consent to i…
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 Assault With Intent To Commit Rape cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant was informed against, tried by a jury, and convicted for the offense of assault with intent to commit rape. From the judgment and sentence based upon the verdict of guilty, this appeal is taken.
Appellant first questions the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction. It is conceded by both parties that the gravamen of this offense is the intent with which the assault is made; and the intent in such case must b.e shown to have so possessed' the accused that his determination was to consummate the rape regardless of resistance and want of consent.1
Appellant contends that the only reasonable inference which may be drawn from the evidence is that his intent was merely to obtain the victim’s consent to his intercourse, and. when he became convinced that such consent would not be given, he voluntarily desisted without any outside interference or unusual resistance on the part of the victim. Under these circumstances he asserts his rightto acquittal as a matter of law on the authority of the Dannelley case, supra, and Roundtree v. State.2 However, in the St. Giorge case,3 the Supreme Court held that in cases of this kind the mere abandonment of the effort to commit the rape is not enough, but the motive for the abandonment must be taken into account.
Without reciting the sordid details shown by the evidence, we deem it sufficient to say that the transcript of the trial proceedings has been carefully read and considered and we find competent and substantial evidence from which the jury could have lawfully concluded that appellant1 committed an assault upon the victim in this case with the intent of having sexual relations' with her regardless of resistance and want of consent. The evidence is equally susceptible of the conclusion that appellant did not voluntarily abandon his professed intent to force the victim to submit to his demands because of any noble motive, but because he feared that to proceed further toward a consummation of his evil design would pose a threat to his own safety. The inferences deducible from the evidence were consistent with the reasonable hypothesis of appellant’s guilt and were resolved by the jury under appropriate instructions of the court.
We have, also carefully considered the motion of appellant for a new trial grounded upon evidence alleged to have been newly discovered, but are of the view that it is so lacking both in character and quality that it fails to establish appellant’s right to a new. trial as a matter of law, and the trial, court’s denial of the motion is not shown to constitute an abuse of discretion.
’ The judgment appealed is accordingly affirmed. : ■ ;
CARROLL; DONALD K., J., and TAYLOR, HUGH M., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sylvia v. State, 210 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…. 2d 164, and it is incumbent upon the appellant to demonstrate an abuse of this discretion before this court would be warranted in reversing the convictions on this point. State v. Sears, 148 Fla. 89, 3 So. 2d 721; Gilchrist v. State, Fla.App.1965, 177 So. 2d 777; Hanson v. State, Fla.App.1966, 187 So. 2d 54. It is apparent that the trial court exercised due diligence in determining what the additional evidence would disclose, and determined that it was something that could have been discovered prior to tria…
-
Floyd v. State, 361 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…nable, in view of defendant’s admission that he entered the house to have sexual relations with the young woman, his admitted telephone call announcing his intention, and the fact that he broke down two doors barring his way. See Gilchrist v. State, 177 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965). Affirmed.…
-
Gorko v. State, 199 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…he evidence. [*133] The argument is directed to two elements: criminal intent and lack of consent. The proof is sufficient in each instance. As to criminal intent see: St. Giorge v. State, Fla. 1956, 92 So. 2d 612; Gilchrist v. State, Fla. App.1965, 177 So. 2d 777. As to resistance necessary to show lack of consent see: Gadsden v. State, 77 Fla. 627, 82 So. 50 (1919); Seely v. State, Fla.App.1966, 191 So. 2d 78. Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Dannelly v. State, 80 Fla. 773 (Fla. 1920)
- Denis St. Giorge v. State, 92 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 1956)
- Roundtree v. State, 43 So.2d 12 (Fla. 1949)