Shuler v. State, 40009

Citation132 So.2d 7
Decision Date07 July 1961
Docket NumberNo. 40009,40009
PartiesRobert SHULER and Jerry Chatman, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida

Francisco A. Rodriguez, Tampa, for appellants.

Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., B. Clarke Nichols, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

ROBERTS, Chief Justice.

Appellants were tried and found guilty of the offense of rape, without recommendation of mercy, and have appealed directly to this court from the judgment of conviction as authorized by Article V, Section 4(2), Fla.Const., F.S.A.

The victim of the alleged attack neither testified nor appeared at the trial, and the jury reached its verdict of guilt upon a consideration of circumstantial evidence as supplemented by statements and confessions of the accused. On this appeal the appellants argue (1) that the confessions were not freely and voluntarily made by them, and (2) that the evidence adduced by the State was insufficient to establish the corpus delicti. Neither of these contentions has merit.

Prior to the introduction of the confessions into evidence, the trial judge heard the testimony of the officers who obtained the confessions as to the circumstances under which they were made. The jury, at the appropriate time, heard similar testimony. This evidence, if believed, was abundantly ample to support a conclusion that the confessions were freely and voluntarily made by the appellants. There is nothing inherently improbable in the testimony of the State's witnesses showing that the confessions were freely and voluntarily made; that are, on the other hand, some inconsistencies in the testimony of appellants by which they sought to show that the confessions were exacted through force, threats, coercion and promises. No authority need be cited for the proposition that, on a pure question of fact, this court is not authorized to substitute its judgment for that of the trier of the facts in the absence of compelling reasons to do so. None have been made here to appear. Accordingly, the appellants' assignment of error respecting the admission into evidence of their confessions is without merit.

Nor can their contention as to the proof of the corpus delicti be sustained. The evidence as to the presence of live male sperm in the vagina of the victim, the laceration and bleeding at the entrance thereof, the contusions, lacerations, and bruises all over her body, and other similar testimony as to the condition of the victim immediately following the alleged...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Shuler v. Wainwright
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • May 4, 1972
    ...the actual emission of seed, but the crime shall be deemed complete upon proof of penetration only. F.S.A. § 794.01. 2 Shuler v. State, Fla., 132 So.2d 7 (1961). 3 Id. at 4 Shuler v. Cochran, Fla., 146 So.2d 380 (1962); Chatman v. Cochran, Fla., 146 So.2d 380 (1962). 5 Shuler v. State, Fla.......
  • State v. Hodges, 62-765
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • September 29, 1964
    ...So. 380. It is likewise settled in this jurisdiction that the corpus delicti may be established by circumstantial evidence. Shuler v. State, Fla.1961, 132 So.2d 7. * * Moreover, as to the order of proof, and the effect of presenting the admission or confession first, the Supreme Court, in P......
  • Shuler v. Wainwright
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • March 27, 1974
    ...is, that the jury should not assess the death penalty.1 The convictions were affirmed on direct appeal by the Supreme Court of Florida, 132 So.2d 7 (1961). The Court held that the evidence had established the corpus delicti and that the confessions were voluntarily made.2 These were the onl......
  • Harper v. State, 2777
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • May 25, 1962
    ...So. 380. It is likewise settled in this jurisdiction that the corpus delicti may be established by circumstantial evidence. Shuler v. State, Fla.1961, 132 So.2d 7. The evidence herein establishes the corpus delicti of the offense of grand As alluded to above, upon being hired by Atlantic, a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT