IVEY WILLIAMS, 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.
Ivey Williams was convicted of murder in the second degree after being indicted for murder in the first degree. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, rejecting Williams's arguments that the evidence was insufficient and that newly discovered evidence warranted a new trial.
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict and that the newly discovered evidence did not meet the stringent requirements for granting a new trial. The evidence was cumulative and merely sought to contradict a witness rather than going to the merits of the case.
“Applications for new trial upon the ground of newly discovered evidence are looked upon by the courts with distrust and disfavor, and are granted only under the following restrictions: (1) The evidence must have been discovered since the former trial; (2) the party must have used diligence to procure it on the former trial; (3) it must be material to the issue; (4) it must go to the merits of the cause, and not merely to impeach the character of a witness; (5) it must not be merely cumulative; (6) it must be such as ought to produce on another trial an opposite result on the merits.”
Establishes the stringent six-part test courts apply when evaluating motions for new trial based on newly discovered evidence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIvey Williams was indicted and tried for murder in the first degree but was convicted of the lesser charge of murder in the second degree. Williams mo…
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
Shackleford, C. J.
Ivey Williams was indicted and tried for murder in the first degree and convicted of murder in the second degree. The only assignment argued is that the trial court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial. Following the established practice of this court, we shall consider only such grounds of this motion as are argued before us, treating the other grounds as abandoned. Johnson v. State, 55 Fla. 41, 46 South. Rep. 174; McCall v. State, 55 Fla. 108, 46 South. Rep. 321; Revels v. State, 62 Fla. 83, 56 South. Rep. 416; Revels v. State, 64 Fla. 432, 59 South. Rep.
951. It is contended that the evidence adduced fails to sustain the verdict. An examination of all the evidence constrains us to a different conclusion. We are of the opinion that it is sufficient. While there are more or less conflicts therein, such conflicts were for the jury to pass upon and determine. See Lindsey v. State, 53 Fla. 56, 43 South. Rep.
87. The only remaining ground of the motion which is insisted upon is one which is based upon newly discovered evidence. We have examined the motion upon this point and the affidavits filed in support thereof and are of the opin ion that no such showing was made as we have several times held should be done. See Williams v. State, 53 Fla. 89, 43 South. Rep. 428, wherein, following prior decisions, we held as follows: “Applications for new trial upon the ground of newly discovered evidence are looked upon by the courts with distrust and disfavor, and are granted only under the following restrictions: (1) The evidence must have been discovered since the former trial; (2) the party must have used diligence to procure it on the former trial; (3) it must be material to the issue; (4) it must go to the merits of the cause, and not merely to impeach the character of a witness; (5) it must not be merely cumulative; (6) it must be such as ought to produce on another trial an opposite result on the merits. The party applying must make his vigilance apparent,”for if it is left even doubtful that he knew of the evidence, or that he might, but for the negligence, have known of and produced it, he, will not succeed in his application.” • The newly-discovered evidence upon the ground of which a new trial was sought was cumulative in its nature and merely sought to contradict one of the State witnesses. See Long v. State, 42 Fla. 612, 28 South. Rep. 855.
No error having been made to appear to us, the judgment must be affirmed.
Taylor, Hocker and Whitfield, J, J., concur. Cockrell, J., absent by reason of illness in his family.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Killingsworth v. State, 90 Fla. 299 (Fla. 1925)…ses; there is no showing of diligence nor do the averments go to the merits of the case, and they are in part cumulative, at least as to the witness Beard. See Judge v. Moore, 9 Fla. 269; Howard v. State, 36-21, 17 South. Rep. 84; Williams v. State, 68 Fla. 88, 66 South. Rep. 424, Herndon v. State, 73 Fla. 451, 74 South. Rep. 511; Long v. State, 42 Fla. 612, 28 South. Rep. 855. The information was not defective, and there 'is no basis for the motion in arrest of judgment. We discover nothing in the reco…
-
Herndon v. State, 73 Fla. 451 (Fla. 1917)…State, 43 Fla., 584, 31 South. Rep. 242; Williams v. State, 53 Fla. 89, 43 South. Rep. 428; Enson v. State, 58 Fla. 37, 50 South. Rep. 948, 138 Amer. St. Rep. 92, 18 Ann. Cas. 940; Gilbert v. State, 61 Fla. 25, 55 South. Rep. 464; Williams v. State, 68 Fla. 88, 66 South. Rep. 424; Florida East Coast Ry. Co. v. Knowles, 68 Fla. 400, 67 South. Rep. 122; Kirkland v. State, 70 Fla. 584, 70 South. Rep. 592; Ryals v. State, 72 Fla. 38, 72 South. Rep. 369. In these cases will be found a discussion of the rule wh…
-
Britt v. State, 88 Fla. 482 (Fla. 1924)…avor of the correctness of the verdict rendered. See Smith v. State, 72 Fla. 449, 73 South. Rep. 354; Williams v. State, 58 Fla. 138, 50 South. Rep. 749; John v. State, 16 Fla. 554; Robinson v. State, 24 Fla. 358, 5 South. Rep. 6; Williams v. State, 68 Fla. 88, 66 South. Rep. 424; Thomas v. State, 73 Fla. 115, 74 South. Rep. 1; Houston v. State, 50 Fla. 90, 39 South. Rep. 468; Wallace v. State, 76 Fla. 175, 79 South. Rep.. 634; Childers v. State, 74 Fla. 288, 77 South. Rep. 99; Pelham v. State, 70 Fla. 29…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pleas Lindsey v. State, 53 Fla. 56 (Fla. 1907)
- Bart McCall v. State, 55 Fla. 108 (Fla. 1908)
- Long v. State, 42 Fla. 612 (Fla. 1900)
- Johnson v. State, 55 Fla. 41 (Fla. 1908)
- Williams v. State, 53 Fla. 89 (Fla. 1907)
- Gus Revels v. State, 64 Fla. 432 (Fla. 1912)
- Revels v. State, 62 Fla. 83 (Fla. 1911)