BOBBY FIELDS, 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.
Bobby Fields was convicted by jury of rape and sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding sufficient evidence of guilt and no reversible error in trial proceedings or evidentiary rulings.
The conviction and death sentence are affirmed. The state presented sufficient and satisfactory evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and neither the admission of prior offense testimony nor the alleged prejudicial remarks by the prosecution constituted reversible error.
[1] A jury's resolution of factual conflicts, when squaring with reason and logic, is sufficient to sustain a conviction.
[2] A defendant is not entitled to a trial de novo on appeal when the jury's factual findings are supported by the record.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The function of a jury to resolve factual conflicts was performed in this cause in a manner squaring with reason and logic, and, clearly, defendant is not now entitled to a trial de novo before us.”
Establishes that the appellate court defers to jury fact-finding when supported by evidence and logical reasoning
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe victim testified that Fields came to her house-trailer asking for water, then forced his way inside with a six-inch knife, threatened to kill her,…
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 Prejudicial Error Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant, Fields, was indicted and tried by jury for the crime of rape, found guilty without recommendation of mercy, and was adjudged guilty and sentenced to death. He appeals and we affirm.
The victim of the alleged rape testified essentially that while she was in her house-trailer, defendant came to it and asked for water to put into the radiator of his car. She complied, and after pouring the water into the radiator, defendant returned with the container and forced his way into the housetrailer. A struggle ensued whereupon defendant produced a knife, with a blade approximately six inches long, and, holding the victim by her arms threatened to kill her. She ceased the struggle and was forced onto the couch where the act of carnal intercourse was committed. The victim next observed the defendant drive away, whereupon she changed her clothes, .secured her child, went to a nearby motel and called her husband to advise him of the incident. Later, she similarly reported the events to the sheriff’s office, identified defendant’s automobile and identified defendant himself in a lineup. Medical examination based upon vaginal smears of the victim, established the presence of live sperm.
Defendant’s primary defense to this testimony, other than a forthright denial of the act, was to question the shortness of the time interval while he was away from his job as well as to question the mis-description of his attire, concluding therefrom that it was impossible for defendant to have committed the crime alleged.
The jury chose to believe otherwise, and our review of the entire record and transcript convinces us that the state produced a sufficient and satisfactory quantum of proof to sustain its burden. State v. Bowden, 154 Fla. 511, 18 So.2d 478 (1944); Askew v. State, 118 So. 219 (Fla.1960); and Jackson v. State, 107 So.2d 247 (Fla.App.2d 1958).
The function of a jury to resolve factual conflicts was performed in this cause in a manner squaring with reason and logic, and, clearly, defendant is not now *242entitled to a trial de novo before us. State v. Smith, 249 So.2d 16 (Fla. 1971), reversing Smith v. State, 239 So.2d 284 (Fla.App.2d 1970).
Defendant finally attacks (1) the testimony relating to a previous offense, and (2) alleged prejudicial remarks made by the state attorney and his assistant during closing argument to the jury. Our review of these items also fails to disclose prejudicial error. The testimony concerning an earlier offense was at most an unpretentious remark during trial, was objected to by counsel and sustained by the court. The alleged prejudicial statements made during closing argument fail to contain those inflammatory or abusive qualities to qualify this case for reversible error. Collins v. State, 180 So.2d 340 (Fla.1965) and Cr PR 1.780, 33 F.S.A. See also State v. Jones, 204 So.2d 515 (Fla.1967).
Accordingly, no reversible error being demonstrated, the judgment and sentence appealed herein is,
Affirmed.
ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Minnis v. State, 505 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…ence that the defendant was involved in a collateral crime or prior bad act. Moreover, the subject testimony was so fleeting and minor in nature that it could not possibly have contributed to the conviction based on this record. See Fields v. State, 257 So. 2d 241, 242 (Fla.1971); Dornan v. State, 306 So. 2d 167, 171 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 422 U.S. 1011, 95 S.Ct. 2636, 45 L.Ed.2d 675 (1975); Hines v. State, 243 So. 2d 434, 435 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971). Second, the prosecuting attorney did not, as urged…
-
Karel A. Born v. State, 339 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…ack of consent as required by Fla.Stat. § 794.-011(5). After carefully considering the record on appeal and briefs we have concluded that [*311] no reversible error has been made to appear. State v. Smith, 249 So. 2d 16 (Fla.1971); Fields v. State, 257 So. 2d 241 (Fla.1971); Berezovsky v. State, 335 So. 2d 592 (Fla.3d DCA 1976). Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Jones, 204 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 1967)
- State v. Rubin Bowden, 154 Fla. 511 (Fla. 1944)
- Collins v. State, 180 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 1965)
- Jackson v. State, 107 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- Woodward v. Edwards, 249 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 1971)
- State v. Smith, 249 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 1971)
- Smith v. State, 239 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)