WILLIAM RAY WILLIAMSON, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed conviction for involuntary sexual battery and firearm possession, holding that trial court properly refused to give a special jury instruction requiring rigid examination of the victim's testimony where standard jury instructions were given.
A trial court does not commit reversible error by refusing to give a special instruction requiring the jury to rigidly examine the victim's testimony in a sexual battery case when standard jury instructions approved by the Supreme Court have been given.
[1] Under the 1974 sexual battery statute, trial courts have discretion to give special jury instructions requiring rigid examination of the victim's testimony, and refusal t…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliamson was tried by jury and found guilty of involuntary sexual battery and possession of a firearm while engaged in a felony. The victim's testim…
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 Victim Credibility cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant-appellant was informed against, tried by jury and found guilty of involuntary sexual battery, and possession of a firearm while engaged in a felony.
Defendant raises some seven points on appeal, only one of which is worthy of discussion, to wit: The trial court committed reversible error by not instructing the jury on the issue of consent and proof in the case. Defendant argues that since the testimony of the prosecutrix is not supported by other evidence, the trial judge should have specifically instructed the jury to rigidly examine her testimony, especially as it related to the nature and extent of the force used and as it related to the question of whether or not consent was ever given.
In 1974 the legislature passed a new statute abolishing the crime of rape and establishing the new crime of sexual battery. Section 794.011, Florida Statutes (1974). The standard jury instructions were amended with regards to this statute and the revised instructions no longer provide for the necessity of giving the jury a specific instruction that the testimony of the prose-cutrix must be rigidly examined. It is within the discretion of the trial judge to render such an instruction. See Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.985. The judge gave the applicable standard jury instructions approved by our Supreme Court and we can find no error in refusing to go beyond the standard instructions to those requested by the defendant. See Dean v. State, 277 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1973).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Watson v. State, 504 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…in the trial court’s refusal to go beyond the standard jury instruction as to these. See, Dean v. State, 277 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1973) (in prosecution for rape, court did not err in refusing to go beyond standard jury instructions); Williamson v. State, 338 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). As concerns the third requested instruction, it has been specifically rejected by this court in Marr v. State, 470 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), pet. for rev. dism., State v. Marr, 475 So. 2d 696 (Fla.1985) (instruction that,…
-
Marr v. State, 470 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…in part. . Notice of this determination was provided to the parties by order of the court dated March 25, 1985. . Pendelton v. State, 348 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Hicks v. State, 388 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); and Williamson v. State, 338 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). . Section 2.04, Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, 2d Ed. . Volume 11, Encyclopedia Britannica (1963), at 91: HALE, SIR MATTHEW (1609-1676), lord chief justice of England under Charles II and one of the most…1 / 3
-
Hicks v. State, 388 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)…ily upon the testimony of the victim. Nevertheless, the court did not err in declining to charge the jury to treat the uncorroborated testimony of the victim with caution. Pendleton v. State, 348 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Williamson v. State, 338 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); § 794.022(1), Fla.Stat. (1979). The court sentenced appellant to concurrent fifteen and five year terms of imprisonment, and the sentencing order stated that the “court maintains jurisdiction over defendant.” Section 947.16(3),…
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
- Dean v. State, 277 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1973)