HARLEY WOODS
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Harley Woods appealed his conviction for unarmed robbery, contending he was too intoxicated to form the specific intent required for the crime and that the evidence was insufficient. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence supported the jury's finding that Woods was capable of forming the necessary intent despite some intoxication, and that the evidence of guilt was sufficient.
The court held that while some evidence showed Woods was under the influence of intoxicating liquor, the evidence as a whole warranted the jury in finding that Woods was capable of forming the specific intent to rob. The question of whether appellant was too intoxicated to form the necessary intent was properly submitted to and decided by the jury, and the evidence was sufficient to support conviction.
“the evidence on the whole warranted the jury in finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant was capable of forming the specific intent necessary to be entertained at the time of the commission of the crime to be criminally liable for the commission of the offense charged”
Establishes that the court will uphold jury findings on specific intent when evidence supports it, despite evidence of some intoxication
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWoods and two companions went to the home of the victim at night with the purpose of robbing him. They entered the house, assaulted an elderly man, an…
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 Unarmed Bank Robbery cases and more on FLexlaw
From a judgment of conviction of unarmed robbery this appeal has been perfected. The appellant has posed three questions for our consideration. By these questions two con*418tentions are advanced. The first is, that the accused was under the influence of intoxicating liquor to such an extent that he was incapable of forming any specific intent to rob. The other is, that the evidence taken as a whole is insufficient.
The record discloses some evidence tending to show that appellant was somewhat under the influence of intoxicating liquor but the evidence on the whole warranted the jury in finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant was capable of forming the specific intent necessary to be entertained at the time of the commission of the crime to be criminally liable for the commission of the offense charged.
Whether or not the appellant was so intoxicated as not to be capable of forming the intent necessary to his conviction was a jury question. The record convinces us that the jury reached the proper and legal conclusion.
In the case of Hamilton v. State, 133 Fla. 481, 182 So. 854, and in the case of Johnson v. State, 135 Fla. 65, 184 So. 653, the defendants respectively relied upon a like contention as is interposed here, but in each case the jury rendered a verdict of guilty and on review this Court affirmed the judgments entered on such verdicts.
The record shows conclusively that Wood with two companions went in the night time to the home of the victim; that they went there for the purpose of robbing him of his money; that they entered the house, assaulted the old man and that one of the party took his money, which was in a pocketbook under a pillow on his bed, and that they all left the house together, leaving the old man in a bruised and beaten condition. They ran away from the house and separated. The man who took .the money was never apprehended and the evidence shows that he separated from his two companions in the crime before dividing the spoils with them. This, however, does not relieve the appellant of responsibility for his part in the robbery.
The record discloses no reversible error.
The judgment is affirmed.
So ordered.
BROWN, THOMAS and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dykes v. State, 264 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…n this facet of his attacks that he “was so intoxicated at the time the offense is alleged to have occurred that he could not possibly have been capable of forming the animus furandi.” Has he perchance overlooked Woods v. State, 1943, 152 Fla. 417, 12 So. 2d 111, 112? “Whether or not the appellant was so intoxicated as not to be capable of forming the intent necessary to his conviction was a jury question. The record convinces us that the jury reached the proper and legal conclusion.” 3 True, no witness co…
-
Rushing v. State, 210 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See: Perry v. State, Fla.App.1965, 177 So. 2d 892; Woods v. State, 152 Fla. 417, 12 So. 2d 111.…
Authorities Cited
- Reubin Clein v. Coleman, 133 Fla. 481 (Fla. 1938)
- Hamilton v. State, 133 Fla. 481 (Fla. 1938)
- Johnson v. State, 135 Fla. 65 (Fla. 1938)