Riddle v. State

Supreme Court of Florida
Riddle v. State, 36 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 1948)
160 Fla. 652; 1948 Fla. LEXIS 819
Thomas, Sebring, Barns, Hobson, Terrell, Chapman, Adams

Riddle v. State

Dissenting Opinion

TERRELL, J.,

dissenting:

I think the evidence in this case is legally insufficient to support the conviction. Considered in sum, I think it is more consistent with a frame-up on the defendant than it is with his guilt. It is far short of showing a “lewd” attempt to “fondle” the prosecutrix, and, while on trial for a felony with a sex aspect, it is about to condemn defendant to infamy and dishonor I am convinced that it would not be sufficient to condemn him for chicken stealing, a trial for which would be governed by the same rules of evidence.

Having received such a reaction from the record impels me to dissent. I am authorized to say that Mr. Justice CHAPMAN agrees to this conclusion.

CHAPMAN, J., concurs.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed.

THOMAS, C. J., SEBRING, BARNS and HOBSON, JJ., concur. TERRELL and CHAPMAN, JJ., dissent. ADAMS, J., not participating.

Reference

Full Case Name
E. Bert Riddle v. State of Florida
Status
Published