Bosworth v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Bosworth v. State

175 So. 725, 128 Fla. 793, 1937 Fla. LEXIS 1330

DecidedJuly 13, 1937

StatusPublished

This text of 175 So. 725 (Bosworth 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

Bosworth v. State, 175 So. 725, 128 Fla. 793, 1937 Fla. LEXIS 1330 (Fla. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This case involves the conviction of the plaintiff in error of the statutory offense of having sexual intercourse with an unmarried female under eighteen years of age and of previous chaste character.

*794 The sole questions involved are whether or not the evidence is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused and the venue of the offense. We find substantial evidence in the record to sustain the verdict and judgment. The weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses were matters for the jury to determine. The jury convicted the defendant and the learned and experienced trial judge gave such conviction the stamp of his approval by denying motion for new trial. We. shall not disturb the judgment. It is affirmed.

So ordered.

Terrell, Brown, Buford and Chapman, J. J., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

This case involves the conviction of the plaintiff in error of the statutory offense of having sexual intercourse with an unmarried female under eighteen years of age and of previous chaste character.

*794 The sole questions involved are whether or not the evidence is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused and the venue of the offense. We find substantial evidence in the record to sustain the verdict and judgment. The weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses were matters for the jury to determine. The jury convicted the defendant and the learned and experienced trial judge gave such conviction the stamp of his approval by denying motion for new trial. We. shall not disturb the judgment. It is affirmed.

So ordered.

Terrell, Brown, Buford and Chapman, J. J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 So. 725, 128 Fla. 793, 1937 Fla. LEXIS 1330, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bosworth-v-state-fla-1937.