Chaffin v. State, I--500
| Decision Date | 02 November 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. I--500,I--500 |
| Parties | James M. CHAFFIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
T. Edward Austin, Jr., Public Defender, and James L. Harrison, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and David U. Tumin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This case is before this court this time for a full appellate review on the merits, raised by a Petition for Habeas Corpus pursuant to direction of the United States District Court so ordering that a full appellate hearing be afforded the defendant and that counsel be appointed to represent said defendant on this appeal. This court entered its order in June 1967, decreeing that the Writ of Habeas Corpus be heard on its merits and that a full review of the judgment and conviction be had.
This case has quite a history attached to it and it has made its appearance in both this court and the Florida Supreme Court on prior occasions, but in neither occasion for a hearing on the merits. We are this time determining this Court's opinion on a complete review of the record and all the original trial proceedings in an effort to arrive at what we think is proper justice according to the law and facts of this case.
In the beginning, in 1958, the defendant was informed against by the County Solicitor of Duval County, charging said defendant with the crime of assault with intent to commit rape on a woman later found to be a widow 52 years of age. All the evidence adduced by the State at the trial tended to prove actual consummation of the intercourse, not just an attempt. This poses one of the first questions in our minds as to why this charge was laid in the Criminal Court of Record instead of the Circuit Court. Surely the Solicitor had all the facts at his disposal before filing the information and if the proof offered was true then the crime was rape and the defendant should not have been charged with the lesser offense in order to invoke the jurisdiction of a lower court. No question was raised on this point, but it does indicate to us that the Solicitor had some doubts in his mind so to the accuracy of the charge at the time he filed. This also affects us, as will be pointed out hereinafter.
In the case sub judice, the evidence shows such a slight offer of resistance in the very beginning of the episode, and none thereafter, as to throw quite a damper upon the material...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. State
...appeals are not markedly different despite the divergence of doctrine. Johnson v. State, Fla.App.1960, 118 So.2d 806; Chaffin v. State, Fla.App.1967, 204 So.2d 22. Other courts, bound as we are by the doctrine that corroboration is unnecessary, find it necessary under the special circumstan......
-
Maynard v. Sec'y
...that of the jury; but the [s]ufficiency of the evidence to support a verdict is within the court's determination." Chaffin v. State, 204 So. 2d 22, 24 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967) (citing Bailey v. State, 79 So. 730, 730 (Fla. 1918)).Defendant was found guilty, following a jury trial, of two counts ......
-
Williams v. State
...of the evidence to support a verdict is within the court's determination. Bailey v. State, 1918, 76 Fla. 213, 79 So. 730; Chaffin v. State, Fla.App.1967,204 So.2d 22. To illustrate the appellate court's power to review the evidence, the Florida Supreme Court, in Raybon v. State, Fla.1954, 7......
-
Payton v. State
...Court of Appeal, First District, reported at 336 So.2d 672, affirming the conviction of petitioner conflicts with Chaffin v. State, 204 So.2d 22 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967); Johnson v. State, 118 So.2d 806 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960); O'Bryan v. State, 324 So.2d 713 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976) and Hollis v. State, ......