KELSEY BETHEL, 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 the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on the Durham rule of insanity and in declaring the defendant competent to stand trial.
The defendant was indicted for rape, found guilty by a jury, and sentenced. He appealed, raising several points including the refusal of an insanity i…
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 M'Naghten Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant-appellant was indicted for rape, tried by jury, found guilty, and sentenced to 25 years in the state penitentiary.
Defendant-appellant has presented some nine points on appeal, only a few of which merit some discussion.
Appellant first urges as error the refusal of the trial court to instruct the jury on the Durham rule of insanity.
Since 1902, Florida expressly has followed the “M’Naghten” Rule, which still is the test for insanity at the present time. Anderson v. State, Fla.1973, 276 So. 2d 17. Thus this point of appellant must fail.
Defendant also argued that the court erred in declaring him competent1 to stand trial. We cannot agree.
As to the issue of defendant’s sanity, the evidence was in conflict and it was within the province of the trier of the fact to resolve the conflict of the sanity of the defendant. Crum v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So. 2d 24.
As another point on appeal, appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal.
It is well settled that an appellate court may not substitute its judgment for that of the trier of facts where there is sufficient competent evidence to support the verdict. Moreover, it is clearly established that the judgment of guilty comes to this court with a presumption of correctness and all inferences to be drawn from the evidence are to be in favor of guilt. Evans v. State, Fla.App.1969, 218 So. 2d 515. After a careful examination of the record on appeal we find there was competent substantial evidence contained therein to sustain the judgment of conviction.
We also considered appellant’s remaining points of appeal and find them to be lacking in merit.
Accordingly, the judgment herein appealed is affirmed.
. Defendant’s alleged incompetence was the basis of several other points on appeal.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Delma Davis v. State, 319 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…lict is between the testimony of lay witnesses and opinions of psychiatrists. See Byrd v. State, Fla.1974, 297 So. 2d 22; Clayton v. State, Fla.App.1973, 272 So. 2d 860; Williams v. State, Fla.App.1973, 275 So. 2d 284; Bethel v. State, Fla.App.1974, 305 So. 2d 251. [*613] There being conflicting testimony as to the sanity of the defendant-appellant in the case sub judice, it was within the province of the jury to determine this question of fact and we will not disturb this determination on appeal. Accordingl…
-
Kelsey Bethel v. State, 315 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 1975)…Certiorari denied. 305 So. 2d 251. ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, OVERTON and ENGLAND, JJ., concur. BOYD, J., dissents.…
Authorities Cited
- Crum v. State, 172 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Earnest Eugene Anderson v. State, 276 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 1973)
- Evans v. State, 218 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)