THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
PRESTON ELEREE WILLIAMS, JR., APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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 from a trial judge's orders granting the defendant a new trial in a cocaine trafficking case. The appellate court affirmed the new trial orders, finding no abuse of discretion by the trial judge who identified multiple grounds warranting a new trial, including failure to properly respond to jury questions and improper state conduct that deprived the defendant of co-defendant testimony.
The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in granting a new trial on either ground. The appellate court affirmed the new trial orders, finding that the trial judge's reasons for granting the new trial were legally sufficient and that no abuse of discretion occurred.
[1] A trial judge has wide discretion in granting or denying motions for a new trial, and an appellate court will not overturn such a ruling unless an abuse of discretion is…
[2] A new trial may be granted when a jury asks a question during deliberations that the court fails to fully answer.
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“It is a well-established rule of law that the trial judge has wide discretion in the matter of granting or denying motions for new trial and that an appellate court will not overturn such a ruling unless some abuse of discretion is shown.”
Establishes the standard of review for new trial motions—abuse of discretion standard gives substantial deference to trial court decisions.
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 was convicted of trafficking in cocaine. During trial, the jury asked whether it could add a written comment to the verdict, and the cou…
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 New Trial Grounds cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
The state appeals from orders granting the defendant a new trial and the defendant cross-appeals from the same orders, contesting the denial of a new trial on certain additional grounds, and from his conviction for trafficking in cocaine and the sentence imposed therefor. The trial judge’s initial order made it clear that he felt he had erred in two respects. First, the court had failed to respond fully to a question that was asked by the jury after it had retired for deliberation. The question asked was whether the jury might add a written comment to the verdict. Second, the court had failed to properly instruct the jury when it asked the court to define the meaning of certain legal terms used in the trial. For these reasons, the court stated that a new trial was required so that the interests of justice would be best served in the cause.
During the pendency of this appeal, we relinquished jurisdiction and remanded the cause to the trial court to allow it to consider the additional ground for new trial which was raised, but not ruled upon, in the trial court, and argued on the defendant’s cross-appeal. State v. Williams, 444 So. 2d 434 (Fla.3d DCA 1983) (on rehearing on motion to dismiss appeal). After holding an evidentiary hearing the trial court entered its order granting the defendant’s motion for a new trial on the basis of this additional ground. The court found that the state had, by its improper conduct, deprived the defendant of the testimony of his (severed) co-defendant, and that had such testimony been available, it would have produced a different result in the defendant’s trial.
It is a well-established rule of law that the trial judge has wide discretion in the matter of granting or denying motions for new trial and that an appellate court will not overturn such a ruling unless some abuse of discretion is shown. See Baker v. State, 336 So. 2d 364, 370 (Fla.1976); State v. Prieto, 439 So. 2d 288 (Fla.3d DCA 1983), pet. for rev. denied, 450 So. 2d 488 (Fla.1984); State v. Haliburton, 385 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); State v. Woodson, 330 So. 2d 152, 154 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Hanson v. State, 187 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966).
From our careful consideration of the record, briefs and arguments of counsel, we are unable to conclude that the trial judge abused his discretion in granting a new trial, either initially, or upon the additional ground urged by the defendant. Therefore, the new trial orders appealed are affirmed. Our disposition makes it unnecessary to address the defendant’s remaining point on cross-appeal.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Allen, 519 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…by allowing the victim’s mother to testify as to statements made by the victim. We have the authority to review the issue raised on cross appeal. See Fla.R.App.P. 9.110(h); State v. Williams, 444 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1983), appeal after remand, 478 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1985). The issue raised by the state on appeal is whether the trial court committed reversible error by granting appellee a new trial on the ground that it had improperly admitted the video taped testimony of the victim. We affirm the…
-
State v. Smith, 206 So. 3d 92 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…napposite because it did not involve setting aside a verdict after the verdict was rendered and the jury was discharged. Turning to the merits, we hold that no abuse of discretion occurred in granting the new trial. See generally State v. Williams, 478 So. 2d 412, 413 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (“It is a well-established rule of law that the trial judge has wide discretion in the matter of granting or denying motions for new trial and that an appellate court will not overturn such a ruling unless some abuse of discr…
Authorities Cited
- Baker v. State, 336 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 1976)
- State v. Prieto, 439 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Cantor v. Matozzo, 444 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Hanson v. State, 187 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- State v. Woodson, 330 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- State v. Harris Haliburton, 385 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)