Ralston v. State

Decision Date20 September 1977
Docket NumberNo. 76-1133,76-1133
PartiesGeorge RALSTON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Paul Morris, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Ira N. Loewy, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, HAVERFIELD and NATHAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was convicted of involuntary sexual battery after a jury trial. By this appeal, he contends that the trial court committed error in failing to respond to a question from the jury:

"Could there be such a thing as implied consent? Is implied consent a defense?"

He further contends that the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion for judgment of acquittal at the conclusion of all the evidence. We affirm.

As to the first point, the trial court correctly declined to respond to the question by the jury in regard to implied consent. Consent by the prosecutrix is a complete defense to the crime charged. The consent may be actual or implied. Whether or not the facts, as determined by the jury, support such a defense is for determination by the jury, and the trial court was not required to give a specific instruction on "implied consent". Danford v. State, 53 Fla. 4, 43 So. 593 (1907); Lindberg v. State, 134 Fla. 786, 184 So. 662 (1938); Wester v. State, 141 Fla. 374, 193 So. 303 (1940); State v. Bryan, 287 So.2d 73 (Fla.1973).

As to the last point, the prosecutrix' testimony alone (which was obviously believed by the jury) was sufficient to make out a prima facie case and, therefore, no error was made by the trial court in denying the motion for judgment of acquittal. State v. Smith, 249 So.2d 16 (Fla.1971); State v. Riggins, 314 So.2d 238 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1975); Berezovsky v. State, 335 So.2d 592 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1976).

The conviction under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • McIlwain v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 8 Julio 1981
    ...(1979).8 Hufham v. State, 400 So.2d 133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); see State v. Melendez, 392 So.2d 587 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).9 Ralston v. State, 350 So.2d 791 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 364 So.2d 890 (Fla.1978); Farabee v. State, 336 So.2d 1281 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 345 So.2d 42......
  • Scheel v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 18 Octubre 1977
    ...was heard first and the opinion of this court affirming the judgment and sentence was filed September 20, 1977. See Ralston v. State, 350 So.2d 791 (Fla.3d DCA 1977), filed September 20, Scheel and Wettlaufer have presented five points as follows: (1) The trial court erred in answering a qu......
  • Bullington v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 16 Marzo 1993
    ...a conviction under that section because the State failed to prove lack of consent. Consent may be actual or implied. Ralston v. State, 350 So.2d 791 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 364 So.2d 890 (Fla.1978). The evidence in this case was generally uncontroverted that S.E.M. initially agree......
  • Gautreaux v. State, 90-1515
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 12 Abril 1991
    ...determination. Hufham v. State, 400 So.2d 133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); State v. Hudson, 397 So.2d 426 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Ralston v. State, 350 So.2d 791 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 364 So.2d 890 (Fla.1978). Contrary to appellant's assertions, in only one out of three possible fact determ......
  • 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