HENRY GEORGE RONALDER, SR., APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions of a father charged with crimes against nature and incest involving his daughters. The court found the evidence sufficient and rejected the appellant's arguments.
Yes, the evidence was sufficient to support the guilty verdicts, and no reversible error was found.
“Although the evidence was not entirely without conflict, the verdicts of guilty were supported by abundant evidence upon which the jury was entitled to rely.”
This quote establishes the court's finding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's guilty verdicts.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was charged with crimes against nature and incest involving his daughters, aged ten and thirteen. The cases were consolidated for trial,…
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 Incest cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was charged in an information with a crime against nature under the Child Molester Law, Ch. 801, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., and in a separate informations charged with incest as provided against by §§ 741.21 and 741.22, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. The parties with whom he was involved were his daughters, aged ten and thirteen years at the time of the trial. The matters were consolidated for trial by stipulation. The defendant was convicted by a jury on both informations. He was adjudged guilty and' sentenced to confinement in the state prison for a term of six months to ten years on the first charge and six months to fifteen years on the second charge, the sentences to run concurrently. The conduct of the defendant revealed by the testimony was *582shocking and sordid. A discussion of such evidence here would serve no useful purpose to the public or to the members of the bar. Although the evidence was not entirely without conflict, the verdicts of guilty were supported by abundant evidence upon which the jury was entitled to rely. The several questions urged by the appellant have been considered on the record, briefs and oral arguments, and are held to be without merit. No reversible error having been shown, the judgments are affirmed.
Affirmed.