WOODARD ROYAL
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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a conviction for assault with intent to commit rape, finding that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict despite conflicting testimony. The court deferred to the jury's role in assessing witness credibility.
Yes, the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict and the judgment.
“There are sharp conflicts between the testimony of the alleged victim and that of the appellant.”
Describes the factual dispute presented to the jury.
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 assault with intent to commit rape. The trial involved conflicting testimony between the alleged victim and the appella…
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 Sufficiency Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, under information charging assault with intent to commit rape, was convicted and adjudged guilty as charged.
From the judgment, appeal has been perfected.
Appellant presents one question only for our consideration in which he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict and judgment.
There are sharp conflicts between the testimony of the alleged victim and that of the appellant. The jury evidently believed the testimony of the alleged victim and disbelieved the appellant, which was within its province to do. The testimony of the alleged victim which was in many respects strongly supported by other evidence, was, if believed by the jury, sufficient to establish every element of the crime charged.
On the entire record we find reflected no reversible error and, therefore, judgment should be affirmed.
So ordered.
BUFORD, C. J., BROWN, THOMAS and SEBRING, JJ., concur.