COSTOS TSIMPICAS
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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a conviction for the crime against nature, finding that despite issues with jury instructions and reliance on a single witness, the evidence was convincing and no reversible error was present.
The conviction is affirmed because, despite concerns about the jury instructions and the reliance on a single witness, the evidence was convincing and no reversible error appeared in the record.
“While the only direct evidence of the commission of the crime is the testimony of the sixteen-year-old boy with whom the act was committed, that testimony is convincing and there is corroborating evidence.”
Establishes the primary evidence relied upon for conviction and the court's assessment of its weight.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was convicted of the crime against nature based primarily on the testimony of a sixteen-year-old boy with whom the act was committed. Th…
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 Crime Against Nature cases and more on FLexlaw
On writ of error we review judgment of conviction of the abominable and detestable crime against nature.
No good purpose can be served by the Court preparing and promulgating an opinion in this case.
While the only direct evidence of the commission of the crime is the testimony of the sixteen-year-old boy with whom the act was committed, that testimony is convincing and there is corroborating evidence.
While we do not approve the manner in which, the trial court instructed the jury as to the applicable law of the case, the record does not show that the jury was not clearly advised in this regard.
On consideration of the entire record, no reversible error *588is made to appear and, therefore, the judgment should be affirmed.
So ordered.
Terrell, C. J., Whitfield, Buford and Ci-iapman, J. J., concur.
Thomas, J., agrees to conclusion.
Justice 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
-
Smith v. State, 239 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)…ir v. United States, 348 U.S. 373, 75 S.Ct. 422 (1955). . Skiff v. State, 1932, 107 Fla. 90, 144 So. 323. The court has referred to the presence of corroboration in affirming convictions on allegedly insufficient evidence. Tsimpicas v. State, 1940, 142 Fla. 587, 195 So. 150; Thomas v. State, Fla.1964, 167 So. 2d 309. .In Missouri, the rule is that corroboration is unnecessary except that “when the evidence of such prosecutrix is of a contradictory nature, or when applied to the admitted facts in the case…