ROBERT E. WESTER
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.
Robert E. Wester appeals his conviction for statutory rape, challenging the sufficiency of evidence and the trial court's admission of testimony regarding an attempted abortion. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that evidence of the defendant's efforts to procure an abortion was admissible to show guilty knowledge and consciousness of guilt.
The court held that there was ample substantial evidence to support the verdict and that the testimony regarding the attempted abortion was properly admitted because it tended to show guilty knowledge and abnormal interest in the victim's physical condition, thereby aiding the jury in determining guilt.
“if it could be shown that a defendant charged with an offense of this sort had shortly after the crime was alleged to have been committed, been active in procuring an attempted abortion to be performed on the prosecutrix, it would tend to show not only guilty knowledge on his part, but also a personal interest in her condition subsequent to the commission of the alleged crime”
Establishes the evidentiary principle that post-crime conduct showing efforts to procure abortion is admissible to prove guilty knowledge and consciousness of guilt.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWester was convicted of carnal intercourse with an unmarried female of previously chaste character under eighteen years of age. Shortly after the alle…
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 Guilty Knowledge cases and more on FLexlaw
Having been convicted of a statutory offense, plaintiff in error seeks to have the judgment reviewed here on writ of error. He presents two questions for our consideration. The first is:
“Was the evidence sufficient to support the verdict that the defendant was guilty of having carnal intercourse with *275a female person who was unmarried, of previous chaste character, and under eighteen years of age?”
The second question is:
“Did the court err in overruling motion for new trial?”
The questions as stated do not meet the requirement of amended Rule 20.
Motion for new trial contained five grounds, as follows:
1. The verdict is contrary to the evidence.
2. The verdict is not supported by the evidence.
3. The verdict is contrary to law.
4. The court erred in permitting the witness to testify to an attempted abortion on her.
5. The court erred in charging the jury to the effect.
The fifth ground of the motion is so incomplete that it presents no question.
There is ample substantial evidence to support the verdict and judgment and whether or hot that evidence was worthy of credence was a matter for the jury and the trial court to determine, as were also the conflicts in the evidence. See Williams v. State, 92 Fla. 125, 109 Sou. 305; May v. State, 89 Fla. 78, 103 Sou. 115; Mitchell v. State, 43 Fla. 188, 30 Sou. 803; Broxson v. State, 99 Fla. 1187, 128 Sou. 628.
Therefore, we revert to the fourth ground of the motion for new trial which is argued under the second question propounded.
It appears to us that the testimony elicited was entirely proper because if it could be shown that a defendant charged with an offense of this sort had shortly after the crime was alleged to have been committed, been active in procuring an attempted abortion to be performed on the prosecutrix, it would tend to show not only guilty knowledge on his part, but also a personal interest in her condition subsequent to the commission of the alleged crime. It can hardly be as*276sumed that a young man will go about procuring the performance of an abortion on a young woman unless he realizes that he is responsible for that condition which suggests the performance of such operation. Any conduct on the part of the accused which would throw light on the association with the prosecutrix and which would tend to show an abnormal interest in her physical condition, the result of sexual intercourse, would be admissible in aiding the jury to determine whether or not the defendant was guilty of the offense charged.
The judgment should be affirmed and it is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Ellis, C. J., and Terrell, J., concur.
Whitfield, C. J., and Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- May v. State, 89 Fla. 78 (Fla. 1925)
- Williams v. State, 92 Fla. 125 (Fla. 1926)
- Broxson v. State, 99 Fla. 1187 (Fla. 1930)
- Mitchell v. State, 43 Fla. 188 (Fla. 1901)