Bell v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Bell v. State

61 Fla. 6

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedJanuary 15, 1911

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 61 Fla. 6 (Bell v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bell v. State, 61 Fla. 6 (Fla. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Shackleford, J.

Joseph H. Bell was convicted in the circuit court for St. Lucie county of an assault with intent to rape and sentenced to five years in the State prison.

Eighteen errors are assigned, several of which are abandoned. We shall not undertake to discuss them in detail. The first five are based upon the overruling of the motion to quash the indictment, but they are not properly before us for consideration, since such motion and the ruling of the court thereon do not appear in the record proper, but are found only in the bill of exceptions. Tip-ton v. State, 53 Fla. 69, 43 South. Rep. 684, wherein prior decisions will be found cited.

A motion for a new trial was made, which questioned the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. The denial of this motion forms the basis of one of the assignments. A careful reading of all the testimony, which we shall not attempt to set out, or even to summarize, convinces us that the court erred in refusing to grant such motion. We held in Hunter v. State, 29 Fla. 486, 10 South. Rep. 730, that “the intent in such cases must be shown by the State to have so possessed the accused that his determination was to consummate the rape regardless of resistance and want of consent.” Also see Clark v. State, 56 Fla. 46, 47 South. Rep. 481, and Rushton v. State, 58 Fla. 94, 50 South. Rep. 486. We think that the evidence fails to come up to this requirement. For this reason the judgment must be reversed and the case remanded.

Whitfield, C. J., and Cockrell, J., concur; Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill, J. J., concur in the opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Shackleford, J.

Joseph H. Bell was convicted in the circuit court for St. Lucie county of an assault with intent to rape and sentenced to five years in the State prison.

Eighteen errors are assigned, several of which are abandoned. We shall not undertake to discuss them in detail. The first five are based upon the overruling of the motion to quash the indictment, but they are not properly before us for consideration, since such motion and the ruling of the court thereon do not appear in the record proper, but are found only in the bill of exceptions. Tip-ton v. State, 53 Fla. 69, 43 South. Rep. 684, wherein prior decisions will be found cited.

A motion for a new trial was made, which questioned the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. The denial of this motion forms the basis of one of the assignments. A careful reading of all the testimony, which we shall not attempt to set out, or even to summarize, convinces us that the court erred in refusing to grant such motion. We held in Hunter v. State, 29 Fla. 486, 10 South. Rep. 730, that “the intent in such cases must be shown by the State to have so possessed the accused that his determination was to consummate the rape regardless of resistance and want of consent.” Also see Clark v. State, 56 Fla. 46, 47 South. Rep. 481, and Rushton v. State, 58 Fla. 94, 50 South. Rep. 486. We think that the evidence fails to come up to this requirement. For this reason the judgment must be reversed and the case remanded.

Whitfield, C. J., and Cockrell, J., concur; Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill, J. J., concur in the opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 Fla. 6, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bell-v-state-fla-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack