CLAYTON WHITEHOUSE, 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.
Clayton Whitehouse appeals his conviction for aggravated assault, simple assault, battery, and false imprisonment, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion for new trial, rejection of a weight-of-the-evidence argument, and admission of victim testimony. The appellate court affirmed the conviction and concurrent sentences, finding no reversible error.
The appellate court found no reversible error in any of the trial court's rulings and affirmed the judgments and sentences. The court determined that the case was fully and fairly tried, the jury verdict was supported by the evidence, and the challenged rulings did not constitute harmful error under the law.
[1] A trial court's denial of a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence is affirmed when no reversible error is shown.
[2] A jury verdict is supported by the evidence when the record discloses the case was fully and fairly tried.
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 intelligence“The record discloses that the case was fully and fairly tried, that the jury's verdict is supported by the evidence and that the rulings challenged by the appellant did not on the record and under the law constitute harmful error.”
The court's principal holding that no reversible error occurred and the verdict was properly supported by evidence presented at trial.
Whitehouse was charged with two counts of aggravated assault, two counts of battery, and two counts of false imprisonment. A jury convicted him of one…
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 Exclusion Of Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was charged in a six count information with two counts of aggravated assault, two counts of battery and two counts of false imprisonment. A jury found him guilty of one count of aggravated assault, one count of simple assault, two counts of battery and two counts of false imprisonment. The trial court sentenced the appellant to a minimum term of three years on the aggravated assault count, and concurrent sentences of sixty days on the assault count, ninety days on each of the two counts of battery, and six months on each of the two false imprisonment counts.
Appellant seeks reversal on the grounds that the trial court erred in (1) denying his motion for new trial based upon newly discovered evidence, (2) failing to grant him a new trial based upon the fact that the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence, and (3) failing to exclude the testimony of Michael Salina, one of the victims.
The several grounds relied upon by the appellant for reversal have been considered in the light of the record, briefs and arguments of counsel, and we have concluded that no reversible error has been shown. The record discloses that the case was fully and fairly tried, that the jury’s verdict is supported by the evidence and that the rulings challenged by the appellant did not on the record and under the law constitute harmful error. Jent v. State, 408 So. 2d 1024 (Fla.1981); Clark v. State, 379 So. 2d 97 (Fla.1979), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 936, 101 S.Ct. 1402, 67 L.Ed.2d 371 (1981); Mikenas v. State, 367 So. 2d 606 (Fla.1978); Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla.1959); Dale v. Ford Motor Co., 409 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Florida First National Bank of Jacksonville v. Dent, 404 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 1st DCA), dismissed 411 So. 2d 381 (Fla.1981); Lamberti v. State, 338 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Dames v. State, 314 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).
Therefore the judgments and sentences appealed are affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited (12 total)
- Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1959)
- Jent v. State, 408 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 1981)
- Clark v. State, 379 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1979)
- Mikenas v. State, 367 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1978)
- Freeman v. Chambly, 450 U.S. 936 (U.S. 1981)
- Engle v. Sims, 450 U.S. 936 (U.S. 1981)
- Fla. First Nat'l Bank OF Jacksonville v. Dent, 404 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Dale v. Ford Motor Co., 409 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Tatum v. Tatum, 409 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Ada Louise Dames v. State, 314 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)