J. MARTIN POSEY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed a conviction for assault with intent to murder, holding that a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence was improperly supported and that the jury verdict was supported by the evidence.
No, a new trial should not be granted on such a showing. Yes, the jury verdict is supported by sufficient evidence.
“Upon such a showing as this, a new trial upon the ground of newly discovered evidence should not be granted.”
Reasoning for denying the motion for a new trial.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff in error was convicted of assault with intent to murder. He sought a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, supported only by his…
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 Newly Discovered Evidence Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
Parkhill, J.
The plaintiff in error was convicted of an assault with intent to murder and, from the judgment and sentence therein imposed, he seeks relief here by writ of error. It is contended that the judgment should be reversed because the trial judge should have granted the motion for new trial upon the ground of newly discovered evidence. This motion has no other support than the affidavit of the defendant. In this affidavit the defendant sets forth that he can prove certain newly discovered facts by witnesses whose names are given, but he does not produce the affidavits of the witnesses themselves to the facts to which they are ready to testify, and he does not satisfactorily show why he can not do so. Upon such a showing as this, a new trial upon the ground of newly discovered evidence should not be granted. Jones v. State, 35 Fla. 289, 17 South. Rep. 284; Williams v. State, 53 Fla. 89, 43 South. Rep. 428.
There is evidence from which all the elements of the crime of which the defendant stands convicted may be legally inferred; and,_ as we cannot see, from the record before us, that the jury were not governed by the evidence adduced at the trial, we will not disturb the verdict merely because the evidence is conflicting. McDonald v. State, 56 Fla. 74.
The Judgment is affirmed.
Taylor and Hocker, JJ., concur. Whitfield, C. J., and Shackleford and Cockrell, JJ., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McClellan v. State, 66 Fla. 215 (Fla. 1913)…he evidence, a refusal of the trial court to grant a new; trial on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict will not be disturbed by the appellate court. McDonald v. State 56 Fla. 74, 47 South. Rep. 485; Posey v. State, 58 Fla. 92, 50 South. Rep. 530; Teal v. State, 43 Fla. 580, 31 South. Rep. 282; Strobhar v. State, 55 Fla. 167, 47 South. Rep. 4; Tatum v. State, 49 Fla. 67, 38 South. Rep. 601., There is substantial competent testimony that the defendant below assaulted and…
Authorities Cited
- Angus McDonald v. State, 56 Fla. 74 (Fla. 1908)
- Jones v. State, 35 Fla. 289 (Fla. 1895)
- Williams v. State, 53 Fla. 89 (Fla. 1907)