DELMA DAVIS, 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.
Delma Davis was convicted of assault with intent to commit murder, robbery, and rape. On appeal, Davis challenged the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on the consequences of a not guilty by reason of insanity verdict and the denial of a motion for a new trial based on allegedly insufficient evidence of legal sanity.
The trial court did not err in refusing the requested jury instruction on consequences of a not guilty by reason of insanity verdict, as such an instruction is within the trial judge's sound judicial discretion. Additionally, where evidence regarding sanity is conflicting, the jury has the authority to resolve such conflicts and determine the defendant's sanity, and an appellate court will not disturb such factual determinations on appeal.
[1] A trial court has discretion whether to instruct the jury on the consequences of a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity.
[2] Where evidence of a defendant's sanity is in conflict, the trier of fact is responsible for resolving that conflict.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 trial judge was not required or under a duty to give such a charge, but rather it was a matter resting within his sound judicial discretion”
Establishes that instructing jury on consequences of insanity verdict is discretionary, not mandatory
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavis was charged by information with two counts of assault with intent to commit murder and two counts of robbery (filed April 12, 1971), and subsequ…
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 Assault With Intent To Commit Murder cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant-appellant by an information filed on April 12, 1971 was charged with two counts of assault with intent to commit murder and two counts of robbery. By information filed December 21, 1972 defendant was charged with rape following an indictment therefor returned by fhe grand jury. At the conclusion of a jury trial on the charges enumerated above, defendant was found guilty on all counts except one of the robbery counts. Defendant was sentenced to life terms for the robbery and rape counts and IS years imprisonment each on the two assault with intent to commit murder counts. This appeal follows.
Having examined appellant’s first two points on appeal and concluded they are without merit, we next considered appellant’s third point, to wit: the trial court erred in refusing defendant’s requested jury instruction on the consequences of a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity.
This same issue has been raised previously and we held that the trial judge was not required or under a duty to give such a charge, but rather it was a matter resting within his sound judicial discretion. See McClure v. State, Fla.App.1958, 104 So. 2d 601. In light of the recent Florida Supreme Court holding in Johnson v. State, Fla.1974, 308 So. 2d 38, we still find the McClure case to be good law. Thus, this point of appellant must fail.
Defendant-appellant’s fourth and last contention is that the trial court erred in denying defense motion for a new trial where the state failed to adduce any testimony that would prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was legally sane at the time of the alleged offense.
There is numerous authority to support the proposition that where evidence as to the defendant’s sanity is in conflict, it is within the province of the trier of the facts to resolve the conflict in favor of the sanity of the defendant even where the conflict 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. 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.
Accordingly, the judgment herein appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Terry, 336 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 1976)…Fla.App. 3rd 1975); Wheat v. State, 315 So. 2d 203 (Fla.App. 1st 1975); Roper v. State, 315 So. 2d 206 (Fla.App. 1st 1975); Howard v. State, 316 So. 2d 654 (Fla. App. 3rd 1975); Kelsey v. State, 317 So. 2d 445 (Fla.App. 1st 1975) and Davis v. State, 319 So. 2d 611 (Fla.App. 3rd 1975). . E. g., Brown v. State, 245 So. 2d 68 (Fla.1971); State v. Washington, 268 So. 2d 901 (Fla.1972); State v. Anderson, 270 So. 2d 353 (Fla.1972); Rayner v. State, 273 So. 2d 759 (Fla.1973); State v. Wilson, 276 So. 2d 45 (Fla.19…
-
Sands v. State, 403 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…ince of a jury to disregard the expert testimony1 and to rely solely on the testimony of the lay witnesses. Therefore, the trial court was correct in rejecting the motion for directed verdict. Byrd v. State, 297 So. 2d 22 (Fla.1974); Davis v. State, 319 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); McClain v. State, 327 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Cozart v. State, 399 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The State concedes error, at least in the sentencing on the unlawful possession of a firearm count while engaged in a cri…
-
Sirianni v. State, 411 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…ntal condition at the time of [*199] the offense is a question of fact for the jury. 297 So. 2d at 24. As such, it is for the jury to determine the credibility of the witnesses and to resolve conflicts in the evidence. Id. See, e.g., Davis v. State, 319 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Clayton v. State, 272 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). On appeal, the question is whether the record contains sufficient competent evidence to support the jury’s verdict of sanity. Blatch v. State, 216 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Johnson v. State, 308 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 1974)
- Byrd v. State, 297 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 1974)
- Leslie E. McCLURE (three cases) v. State, 104 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Williams v. State, 275 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Clayton v. State, 272 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Kelsey Bethel v. State, 305 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)