STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
HARRIS HALIBURTON, APPELLEE
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 State appealed a trial court's order granting a new trial to a defendant convicted of burglary. The appellate court held that the trial judge abused its discretion in finding the identification evidence insufficient and reversed, ordering reinstatement of the jury verdict.
The trial court abused its discretion in ordering a new trial. The State's identification evidence was more than adequate, the evidence was not lacking in credibility, witnesses were not impeached on the issue of identity, and the verdict should be reinstated.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion when it grants a new trial based on a finding that the evidence is inconclusive, fragmentary, and insubstantial as to identification,…
[2] The standard for reviewing a trial court's order granting a new trial is whether the judge abused the broad discretion afforded in considering such a motion.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the evidence ... is inconclusive, fragmentary and insubstantial as to the issue of identification of the defendant from any view so as to sustain a jury verdict”
The trial court's stated reason for granting the new trial, which the appellate court found was an abuse of discretion
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant and another individual were tried and convicted of burglary. Both defendants moved for a new trial. The trial court granted only the def…
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 Abuse Of Discretion Standard For New Trial Motions cases and more on FLexlaw
BERANEK, Judge.
This is an appeal by the State from the trial court’s order granting a new trial to the defendant/appellee. The defendant and another individual were tried and convicted of the crime of burglary. Both defendants moved for new trial and the trial court granted only defendant’s motion, finding, “the evidence ... is inconclusive, fragmentary and insubstantial as to the issue of identification of the defendant from any view so as to sustain a jury verdict.” We hold that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering a new trial and reverse with directions to reinstate the jury verdict.
The standard for review after the grant of a new trial is whether the trial judge has abused the broad discretion which is his prerogative in considering such a motion. See Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla.1959), and State v. Riggins, 314 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), cert. denied 333 So. 2d 464 (Fla.1976). Here, the evidence was not lacking in any sort of intrinsic credibility. There was no impeachment of the State witnesses on the issue of defendant’s identity. Defendant did not take the stand. Counsel on appeal agrees completely with the State’s version of the facts relating to identification. This is not a situation where the evidence was inconsistent or in any way unworthy of belief. The only question presented was the sufficiency of the evidence, and we conclude that the State’s case on identity was more than adequate. State v. Coles, 91 So. 2d 200 (Fla.1956).
The order granting new trial is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to reinstate the jury verdict and for further proceedings thereafter. REVERSED AND REMANDED.
DOWNEY and HERSEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Hart, 632 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…erturn the trial court’s granting of a new trial, there must be a clear showing that the trial court abused the broad discretion accorded it in ruling on a motion for a new trial. Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669, 672 (Fla.1959); State v. Haliburton, 385 So. 2d 11, 12 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); State v. Riggins, 314 So. 2d 238, 240 [*135] (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), cert. denied, 333 So. 2d 464 (Fla.1976). In addition, a stronger showing is required to overturn an order granting a new trial than to overturn an order denyi…
-
Santiago v. State, 874 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…e v. Coles, 91 So. 2d 200 (Fla.1956); State v. McMahon, 485 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 492 So. 2d 1333 (Fla.1986); Gonzalez v. State, 449 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 3d DCA), pet. for review denied, 458 So. 2d 274 (Fla.1984); State v. Haliburton, 385 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Decisions of more recent vintage indicate that an appropriate ground for a motion for a new trial in a criminal case is the sufficiency of the evidence.3 Some of these decisions seem to rely on the historical role that a motion…
-
State v. McMAHON, 485 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…s of ap-pellee two months after the assault. [*887] The proper standard of appellate review for an order granting a new trial is whether the trial judge abused his discretion. Gonzalez v. State, 449 So. 2d 882 (Fla.3d DCA 1984); State v. Haliburton, 385 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). As stated by our supreme court in State v. Coles, 91 So. 2d 200, 204 (Fla.1956): We are fully conscious of and are committed to following the rule of law that an appellate court will not disturb an order of a trial court granti…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1959)
- State v. Ola Coles, 91 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 1956)
- Unigard Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sugarman, 314 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- State v. Riggins, 314 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)