WILLIAM A. CARTER, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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 court held that the appellant's argument for a new trial due to a dispute over the trial record is without merit, and no reversible error was found on the merits.
[1] When a trial transcript is lost, a trial judge may reconstruct the record based on statements from counsel and the judge's own recollection.
[2] A new trial is not required when the trial judge successfully reconstructs a record after the original transcript is lost, even if counsel cannot agree on the reconstruct…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was convicted of grand larceny. Due to lost trial notes, the record was reconstructed by counsel and the trial judge. The appellant argued f…
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 Reconstruction Of Record cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant was convicted of grand larceny, on a non-jury trial. The sentence imposed was confinement in the county jail for the period one year, with provision that after serving one month thereof he should be on probation for eleven months.
On his appeal, when it became known that the reporter’s notes of the testimony and trial proceedings were lost, this court relinquished jurisdiction to the trial court to permit a record to be made. The attorney for defendant submitted a statement reflecting the evidence and proceedings at trial as recollected by him. The assistant state attorney involved in the trial agreed therewith except for certain portions. Thereupon the trial judge supplied a statement of the facts disclosed in the evidence and of the proceedings at the trial, based on the statements of counsel which were not in dispute and on his recollection as to the areas on which the attorneys for the parties were not in agreement. In so doing, the trial judge properly performed his duty in such circumstance. See Downing v. Bird, Fla.App. 1962, 145 So. 2d 559, citing Moyer v. Moyer, Fla.App. 1959, 114 So. 2d 638 and Potash v. Dry & Company, 8 Fla.Supp. 174. Such record then was submitted to this court and the appeal was heard.
We hold to be without merit the appellant’s argument that a new trial should be granted because the attorneys for the parties could not agree on a statement of the record, notwithstanding the trial judge has settled upon and restored the record of the trial evidence and proceedings including those areas thereof as to which counsel for the parties were not in agreement. Downing v. Bird, supra.
On the merits of the appeal, the appellant argues insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction and that error was committed by a ruling of the trial court admitting certain evidence over objection by defendant. On consideration thereof in the light of the record as thus restored and supplied and the briefs and argument, we hold no reversible error has been made to appear. Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bourne v. State, 341 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)…September 14, 1976, we entered an order relinquishing jurisdiction to the court below for a period of thirty (30) days with directions to prepare a supplemental record pursuant to Fla.App. Rule 6.9(c) and (d). We cited in said order Carter v. State, 334 So. 2d 109 (3 DCA 1976). We pointed out in said order that the record before us was insufficient for a determination of the question raised by the appeal— whether or not the court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate appellant in contempt of court. We have had no…
-
Rigoberto Cusidor v. State, 515 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Johnson v. State, 442 So. 2d 193 (Fla.1983); Carter v. State, 334 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).…
Authorities Cited
- Moyer v. Moyer, 114 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- Lottie Sykes Downing v. Bird, 145 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Pottash v. DRY & Co., 8 Fla. Supp. 174 (Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. 1956)