Gilmore v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gilmore v. State

393 So. 2d 1163, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19478

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 10, 1981

DocketNo. 78-1075

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 393 So. 2d 1163 (Gilmore v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gilmore v. State, 393 So. 2d 1163, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19478 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was charged with the crime of aggravated battery. He pled a defense of temporary insanity. He was found guilty as charged, convicted and sentenced.

On appeal, the appellant argues that the only evidence in the record was that he was insane at the time the criminal incident occurred and, therefore, he was entitled to a judgment of acquittal or a directed verdict, citing Blocker v. State, 87 Fla. 128, 99 So. 250 (1924); Farrell v. State, 101 So.2d 130 (Fla.1958).

The above cited authorities are found not to be applicable in the instant case, because there were lay eye witnesses who described the demeanor, circumstances, and actions of the defendant and it was within the province of the jury to believe lay testimony over expert testimony. Brady v. State, 190 So.2d 607 (Fla.3d DCA 1966); French v. State, 266 So.2d 51 (Fla.3d DCA 1972); Byrd v. State, 297 So.2d 22 (Fla.1974); State v. Ward, 374 So.2d 1128 (Fla.1st DCA 1979). The matter was properly submitted to the jury. We therefore find no error and affirm.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was charged with the crime of aggravated battery. He pled a defense of temporary insanity. He was found guilty as charged, convicted and sentenced.

On appeal, the appellant argues that the only evidence in the record was that he was insane at the time the criminal incident occurred and, therefore, he was entitled to a judgment of acquittal or a directed verdict, citing Blocker v. State, 87 Fla. 128, 99 So. 250 (1924); Farrell v. State, 101 So.2d 130 (Fla.1958).

The above cited authorities are found not to be applicable in the instant case, because there were lay eye witnesses who described the demeanor, circumstances, and actions of the defendant and it was within the province of the jury to believe lay testimony over expert testimony. Brady v. State, 190 So.2d 607 (Fla.3d DCA 1966); French v. State, 266 So.2d 51 (Fla.3d DCA 1972); Byrd v. State, 297 So.2d 22 (Fla.1974); State v. Ward, 374 So.2d 1128 (Fla.1st DCA 1979). The matter was properly submitted to the jury. We therefore find no error and affirm.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

393 So. 2d 1163, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19478, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gilmore-v-state-fladistctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack