BENJAMIN RIVERS HARRELL, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
The court held that a jury verdict cannot be overturned due to speculation about compromise or mistake, and that one eyewitness's testimony can be sufficient.
The defendant was charged with assault with intent to commit murder and unlawful firearm possession by a felon. The jury found him guilty of misdemean…
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 Convicted Felon cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was the defendant in the Criminal Court of Record. He was charged with “assault with intent to commit murder in the first degree with a firearm.” A second charge was for unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Both charges are felonies.
The two charges were consolidated in one jury trial, and at the conclusion of the State’s case, the court reduced the charge of assault with intent to commit murder in the first degree to the felony charge of aggravated assault.
At the conclusion of the defendant’s case, the court denied his motion for a directed verdict. The jury found the defendant guilty of assault and battery, a misdemean- or, and guilty of “possession of a firearm by a convicted felon”, a felony.
The appellant contests the sufficiency of the evidence to support the felony conviction, in that only one witness testified that he saw the gun in the appellant’s hand during a fight and just before the gun was fired into the ceiling of a bar.
The appellant argues further that since the jury found the appellant guilty of assault and battery, a misdemeanor, the jury disregarded the testimony of the State’s *307eye-witness, and that the court committed error when it did not direct a verdict, or grant a new trial, on the felony conviction.
We find that the sufficiency of one eye-witness has been answered in the case of State v. Sebastian, Fla.1965, 171 So.2d 893, 895.
In State v. Trafficante, Fla.App.1961, 136 So.2d 264, 268, the question of inconsistency is clearly resolved. In that case the court stated the rule that even though a verdict might have been the result of a compromise or a mistake on the part of the jury, that verdict cannot be upset by speculation or inquiry into such matters.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rumph v. State, 248 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)…find any inconsistency between an adjudication of entering with the intent to commit grand larceny and an adjudication finding that only petty larceny was consummated, any such inconsistency would not compel reversal. Harrell v. State, Fla.App.1967, 194 So. 2d 306; Goodwin v. State, 157 Fla. 751, 26 So. 2d 898 (1946); and State v. Trafficante, Fla.App.1961, 136 So. 2d 264.” In our recent case of Adams v. State, 242 So. 2d 723 (Fla.App.1971), the defendant was convicted of breaking and entering with intent to…
-
Henderson Nurse v. State, 658 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…ed, 493 U.S. 826, 110 S.Ct. 89, 107 L.Ed.2d 54 (1989); State v. Ogden, 35 Or.App. 91, 580 P. 2d 1049 (1978); see also State v. Sawyer, 227 Conn. 566, 630 A. 2d 1064, 1074 (1993) (Katz, J., dissenting and authorities cited therein); Harrell v. State, 194 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967) (no inquiry into jury deliberations even where verdict might have resulted from compromise); State v. Marhal, 172 Wis.2d 491, 493 N.W. 2d 758, 763 (1992) (same), rev. denied, - Wis.2d -, 497 N.W. 2d 131 (1993). . The testimony ad…
-
Miller v. State, 220 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…find any inconsistency between an adjudication of entering with the intent to commit grand larceny and an adjudication finding that only petty larceny was consummated, any such inconsistency would not compel reversal. Harrell v. State, Fla.App.1967, 194 So. 2d 306; Goodwin v. State, 157 Fla. 751, 26 So. 2d 898 (1946); and State v. Trafficante, Fla.App.1961, 136 So. 2d 264. For the aforesaid reasons the judgments appealed be and the same are hereby affirmed.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Sebastian, 171 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 1965)
- State v. Trafficante, 136 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)