FRED MARLOWE
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.
Fred Marlowe was convicted of carnal intercourse with an unmarried female under 18 years of age of previous chaste character. The Florida Supreme Court reviewed eight challenges to the conviction on writ of error and affirmed the judgment, finding the evidence sufficient, the verdict harmonious with the charge, and no reversible error in the trial court's instructions.
The court affirmed the conviction, finding the evidence sufficient to sustain the verdict, no disharmony between the verdict and charge, and no reversible error regarding jury instructions. The court held that absent written requests for specific instructions, a trial court is not in error when the charge given is full and fair, and that when charges are incomplete rather than erroneous, the objecting party must submit appropriate requested charges.
“the court below has not had opportunity to consider the instruction contended for and will not be held in error where the charge given by the court is, as in this case, full and fair”
Establishes the rule that without written requests for specific instructions, the trial court cannot be reversed for failing to give requested instructions if the charge given is full and fair.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMarlowe was charged with having carnal intercourse with an unmarried female under the age of eighteen years of previous chaste character. The trial co…
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 Statutory Rape cases and more on FLexlaw
Writ of error brings for review judgment of conviction of the offense of having carnal intercourse with an unmarried female, under the age of eighteen years, of previous chaste character.
*308The plaintiff in error presents eight questions for our consideration.
The first and third questions challenge the sufficiency of the evidence.
The evidence has been' examined and found to be sufficient to sustain the verdict.
The second question challenges the harmony of the verdict with the charge of the court. We find no basis for this contention.
The fourth, seventh and eighth questions challenge the action of the court in failing to give certain instructions.
The record fails to show that plaintiff in error presented any written request for specific instruction's by the Court to the jury. Therefore, the court below has not had opportunity to consider the instruction contended for and will not be held in error where the charge given by the court is, as in' this case, full and fair. See Rawlins v. State, 40 Fla. 155, 24 Sou. 65; Douglass v. State, 53 Fla. 27, 43 Sou. 424; Padgett v. State, 64 Fla. 389, 59 Sou. 946, Ann. Cas. 1914B 897; Gillyard v. State, 65 Fla. 322, 61 Sou. 641; Hicks v. State, 75 Fla. 311, 78 Sou. 270; Hobbs v. State, 77 Fla. 228, 81 Sou. 444; Turner v. State, 99 Fla. 246, 126 Sou. 158; Pensacola Elec. Co. v. Bissett, 59 Fla. 360, 52 Sou. 367; Edwards v. Fitchner, 104 Fla. 52, 139 Sou. 585; Jacksonville, etc., Ry. Co. v. Harris, 33 Fla. 217, 14 Sou. 726, 39 Am. St. Rep. 127; Irvin v. State, 19 Fla. 372; Lindsey v. State, 53 Fla. 56, 43 Sou. 87; Tindall v. State, 99 Fla. 1132, 182 Sou. 494.
The fifth and sixth questions challenge the sufficiency of the charge given by the trial court. If charges are n'ot erroneous, but merely incomplete, it is the duty of the party objecting to subifiit appropriate charges and request them to be given to the jury to cover points alleged to be not sufficiently covered in the charges which the court has under*309taken to give. See Taylor v. State, 98 Fla. 881, 124 So. 445; Long v. State, 11 Fla. 295; Blige v. State, 20 Fla. 742, 51 An. Rep. 628.
The record discloses n'o reversible error and the judgment is affirmed.
So ordered.
Terrell, C. J., and Tiiomas, J. J., concur. '
Chapman, J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Whitfield and Brown not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fred Howland, Inc. v. Morris, 143 Fla. 189 (Fla. 1940)…e instructions in writing on any point of law arising on the trial, it shall be the duty of the judge to declare in writing to the jury his ruling thereupon as presented, and pronounce the same to the jury as given or refused.” In Marlowe v. State, 139 Fla. 307, 190 So. 602, Mr. Justice Buford, speaking for the Court, said: “If charges are not erroneous, but merely incomplete, it is the duty of the party objecting to submit appropriate charges and request them to be given to the jury to cover points alleg…
-
Holloman v. State, 140 Fla. 59 (Fla. 1939)…e court below has had no opportunity to consider the instruction contended for and will not be held in error where the instructions actually are not contested and put in the record so that this Court might full}'- consider them. See Marlow v. State, 139 Fla. 307, 190 South. Rep. 602; Rawlins v. State, 40 Fla. 155, 24 Sou. Rep. 65; Douglass v. State, 53 Fla. 27, 43 Sou. Rep. 424; Padgett v. State, 64 Fla. 389, 59 Sou. Rep. [*63] 946; Ann. Cas. 1914B 897; Gillyard v. State, 65 Fla. 322, 61 Sou. Rep. 641; Hick…
-
Rittenbery v. Eddins, 272 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)…should be reversed and the cause remanded with directions that judgment be entered on the verdict. . Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. v. Noel (Fla. App.1971) 254 So. 2d 7; Schiffman v. Powell System, Inc. (Fla.App.1971) 246 So. 2d 171; Marlowe v. State, 139 Fla. 307, 190 So. 602; Prevatt v. State, 135 Fla. 226, 184 So. 860.…
Authorities Cited (15 total)
- Will Tindall v. State, 99 Fla. 1132 (Fla. 1930)
- Pleas Lindsey v. State, 53 Fla. 56 (Fla. 1907)
- Padgett v. State, 64 Fla. 389 (Fla. 1912)
- Turner v. State, 99 Fla. 246 (Fla. 1930)
- Pensacola Elec. Co. v. Bissett, 59 Fla. 360 (Fla. 1910)
- Blige v. State, 20 Fla. 742 (Fla. 1884)
- Rawlins v. State, 40 Fla. 155 (Fla. 1898)
- Long v. Florida, 11 Fla. 295 (Fla. 1867)
- Hobbs v. State, 77 Fla. 228 (Fla. 1919)
- Douglass v. State, 53 Fla. 27 (Fla. 1907)