R.A.S., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
R.A.S., a juvenile, was adjudicated delinquent following a bench trial for theft and placed in a community control program. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, rejecting the child's arguments that the verdict was against the weight of evidence and that a new trial was warranted based on newly discovered evidence.
The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court's credibility determinations were supported by the record, and that the newly discovered evidence did not meet the standards for a new trial because it was available to the defense during trial, was merely cumulative, and would not have changed the verdict.
[1] A trier of fact is permitted to assess witness credibility and rely on testimony found to be believable while rejecting testimony found to be untrue when evidence conflic…
[2] A new trial based on newly discovered evidence requires that the evidence was discovered after trial, that due diligence was exercised to obtain the evidence for the orig…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“it is within the province of the trier of fact to assess the credibility of witnesses and upon evaluating their testimony, rely upon the testimony found to be worthy of belief and reject such testimony found by it to be untrue.”
Establishes that the trial court's credibility determinations are within its province and will not be overturned on appeal if supported by the record.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceR.A.S. was charged with theft. At the bench trial, the State and the child presented conflicting versions of the events leading to and including the t…
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 Adjudication Of Delinquency cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
This appeal is from a judgment adjudicating R.A.S. to be delinquent, and placing the child in a community control program. We affirm.
The judgment followed a bench trial at which R.A.S. and the State each presented, through the testimony of various witnesses, completely conflicting versions of the events leading up to the theft and of the theft itself. R.A.S.’ version tended to be exonerating, while the State’s version tended to show the child’s culpability. At the conclusion of the proceeding, the court found the testimony of the State’s witnesses to be more believable than that of the defense witnesses.
R.A.S. sought rehearing via a motion pursuant to Rule 8.230, Fla.R.Juv.P., alleging that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The motion also sought a new trial because of newly discovered evidence. The motion was denied.
We do not agree with R.A.S.’ allegations that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The trial court observed the various witnesses and heard their testimony firsthand. Where evidence conflicts, as here, “it is within the province of the trier of fact to assess the credibility of witnesses and upon evaluating their testimony, rely upon the testimony found to be worthy of belief and reject such testimony found by it to be untrue.” I.R. v. State, 385 So. 2d 686, 687 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). The court found the State’s witnesses, particularly P.W., to be more believable than those for the defense. There is sufficient support in this record for this finding.
We must also agree that a new trial was not warranted on the basis of the “newly discovered evidence” presented by R.A.S. in his motion for rehearing. The standards for granting a new trial based on newly discovered evidence were established in Clark v. State, 379 So. 2d 97 (Fla.1980). A new trial will not be granted
[ujnless the evidence was discovered after trial, unless due diligence was exercised to have such evidence at the former trial, unless the evidence goes to the merits of the cause and not merely to impeach a witness who testified, unless the evidence is not cumulative, and unless it is such that it probably would have changed the verdict.
Id. at 101. In this case, the evidence (school records indicating R.A.S.’ attendance for part of the day) was available to thd defense at all times during trial, but was not produced. This demonstrates a lack of due diligence. Further, the evidence is merely cumulative of other contradictions of the testimony of the State’s witnesses, and is not inconsistent with the testimony of P.W., relied on by the trial court. Therefore, we find that the evidence probably would not have changed the verdict.
Affirmed.
ERVIN, C.J., and ZEHMER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. M.H., Jr., 571 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…error for the trial court to grant defendant a new trial. Here, we distinguish between newly discovered evidence which Rule 8.230(a)(4) contemplates, and newly obtained but earlier discoverable evidence which the rule excludes. See R.A.S. v. State, 458 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). The order of the trial court granting defendant a new trial is reversed and this matter remanded with instructions that the lower court’s finding of guilt be reinstated. REVERSED and REMANDED. COBB and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.…
-
K.C. v. State, 507 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…ttal. While the juvenile’s and other witnesses’ versions of the events were conflicting, the evidence supported the trial court’s determination that every reasonable hypothesis but that of the juvenile’s guilt had been excluded. See R.A.S. v. State, 458 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). We also affirm the adjudication of delinquency for the two counts of resisting a merchant. The trial court’s finding that the juvenile had committed the charged act of petit theft satisfied the requirement of section 812.051(6)…
-
R.C. v. State, 516 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…te failed to present substantial, competent evidence to support the adjudication. Finding no merit in the points raised, we affirm. See Caulder v. State, 500 So. 2d 1362 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), review denied, 511 So. 2d 297 (Fla.1987); R.A.S. v. State, 458 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); I.R. v. State, 385 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); D.S.H. v. State, 323 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Clark v. State, 379 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1979)
- I.R. and I.R. v. State, 385 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)