JACKIE EUGENE LEWIS, 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.
Jackie Eugene Lewis was convicted of assault with intent to rape an eleven-year-old girl. On appeal, Lewis challenged the sufficiency of evidence establishing his identity as the assailant, but the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction based on the victim's positive identification and corroborating evidence.
The evidence was sufficient to identify Lewis as the assailant. The victim's positive identification, combined with the distinctive features of his vehicle (two-tone color, spare tire arrangement, California license plate) and the corroborating naval officer testimony, constituted sufficient evidence of identity.
“The sole question argued here is the sufficiency of the evidence to prove the identity of the appellant as the child's assailant.”
Establishes the narrow issue on appeal—identity, not guilt of the underlying crime
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLewis had a moustache and drove a distinctive two-tone late model Chevrolet with a spare tire on the back and California license tag. He was arrested …
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 Rape cases and more on FLexlaw
ROBERTS, Justice.
Appellant was convicted of assault with intent to rape an eleven-year old girl and has appealed from the judgment of conviction. The sole question argued here is the sufficiency of the evidence to prove the identity of the appellant as the child’s assailant.
The appellant had a moustache and drove a two-tone late model Chevrolet with a spare tire arrangement on the back and a California license tag. He was picked up about a week after the date of the assault on a charge of having an improper license plate, apparently on information furnished the officers by the child. Twenty minutes later, he was placed in a line-up with six other men and was identified by the child as her assailant. She had previously advised the officers that her assailant had a moustache, and at the trial she positively identified the appellant as the man who assaulted her. The child also identified the car as the one that was driven by her assailant. A naval officer testified that he saw a car similar in appearance to appellant’s, with a spare tire arrangement and California license tag, parked on the side of the road near the scene of the assault at the time the assault occurred.
The appellant and one of his witnesses, a manager of rental property, testified that, shortly before the time of the assault, appellant had visited the witness’ office to see if he had a house or apartment for rent. The child had testified earlier, in describing the assault, as follows:
“Well, there was a car parked next to the road, and I stopped there and he asked was there any house for sale, and I said not that I knew of, and he asked were there any for rent, and I said not that I knew of, and he asked me how far did I live, and I said ‘The second row down from here’, and that’s when he took out the gun.”
This evidence, if believed by the jury, was in our opinion sufficient to identify the appellant as the child’s assailant. The jury apparently chose to believe it and to disbelieve the testimony of appellant and his witnesses by which he sought to establish an alibi. In these circumstances, the verdict and judgment must be
Affirmed.
DREW, C. J., THOMAS, J., and PRUNTY, Associate Justice, concur.