TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Atkins v. State

William Atkins, in Error v. The State of Florida, in Error

Atkins v. State, 63 So. 440 (Fla. 1913)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Florida · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 4, 1913
Judges
Cockrell, Hocker, Shackleford, Taylor, Whitfield
Citations
63 So. 44066 Fla. 233
Disposition
Judgment affirmed.
Headnotes
Where the only point presented to an appellate court for determination is as to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, and such court finds that there is ample testimony for that purpose and there is nothing whatever to show that the. jurors were not governed by the evidence in arriving at their verdict the judgment must be affirmed.
Summary
. Writ of error to Circuit Court, Leon County; J. W. Malone, Judge.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Shackleford

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Shackleford, C. J.

William Atkins was convicted of the statutory offense of having carnal intercourse with an unmarried female under eighteen years of age and sentenced to confinement in the State Prison for the period of one year. This judgment and sentence he seeks to have reviewed here by writ of error.

The sole assignment urged before us is based upon the overruling of the motion for a new trial, which questions the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. We find from the transcript that, while there are conflicts in the testimony, there is ample testimony to warrant a conviction and there is nothing whatever to show that the jurors were not. governed by the evidence in arriving at their verdict. Applying the test, which we have admitted and applied in a number of cases, as to whether *234 or not the jurors acting as reasonable men could have found the verdict, we find that this question must be answered in the affirmative. See Smith v. State, 65 Fla. 56 , 61 South. Rep. 120 , and cases there cited. Also see McClellan v. State, decided here at the present term.

Judgment affirmed.

Taylor, Cockrell, Hocker and Whitfield, J. J., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1937: 119372026peak 1937 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Sabins v. City of Daytona Beach177 So. 229 (Fla. 1937)

Most recent

  1. Sabins v. City of Daytona Beach177 So. 229 (Fla. 1937)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Smith v. State, 61 So. 120 (Fla. 1913) 16

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list