ELBERT JOHNSON
v.
STATE
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 Supreme Court affirmed a conviction for incest, holding that the victim's testimony, if believed by the jury, was sufficient to support the verdict, and the trial court's endorsement by denying a new trial indicated no reversible error.
Yes, if the jury believed the alleged victim's testimony, it was sufficient to support the conviction. No reversible error was found in the record.
“If the evidence given by the alleged victim was such that a jury of reasonable men believed it, it was sufficient to support the verdict.”
Establishes the standard for sufficiency of evidence based on jury belief.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involved a conviction for incest. The primary evidence was the testimony of the alleged victim. The jury evidently believed this testimony, a…
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
On writ of error we review judgment of conviction of the crime of incest.
If the evidence given by the alleged victim was such that a jury of reasonable men believed it, it was sufficient to support the verdict. The juiy evidently did believe it and the able Circuit Judge who saw the witnesses and heard them testify endorsed the finding of guilty by refusing to grant a new trial.
The entire record has been examined and the able briefs duly considered and we fail to find reflected therein any reversible error.
The judgment is affirmed.
So ordered.
Affirmed.
Terrell, C. J., and Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, P. J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Brown and Chapman not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.