PHILIP M. HARDING, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed manslaughter conviction, rejecting challenges to the denial of judgment of acquittal, admission of statements, and denial of mistrial based on prosecutor's closing argument.
The trial court properly denied judgment of acquittal where sufficient evidence existed to support the manslaughter conviction despite the defendant's self-defense claim.
[1] A trial court does not err in denying a judgment of acquittal motion when evidence exists that a jury could reasonably reject a self-defense claim and find guilt beyond a…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“A court should not grant a motion for judgment of acquittal unless there is no view of the evidence which the jury might take favorable to the opposite party that can be sustained under the law.”
Standard for reviewing denial of judgment of acquittal motion
Appellant was convicted of manslaughter and challenged the conviction on three grounds: insufficient evidence to rebut self-defense, admission of alle…
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 Prosecutorial Argument cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges his manslaughter conviction raising three issues. First, he claims the trial court erred in refusing to grant a judgment of acquittal because the state failed to present sufficient evidence to rebut his claim of self-defense. Having read the entire record and noted both the evidence of self-defense and the state’s impeachment and cross-examination, we find no error. A court should not grant a motion for judgment of acquittal unless there is no view of the evidence which the jury might take favorable to the opposite party that can be sustained under the law. Taylor v. State, 583 So. 2d 323 (Fla.1991). As to appellant’s claim that the court erred in admitting statements which he alleged were made by him while in an intoxicated mania, based on a review of the evidence and Burns v. State, 584 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), we conclude that the trial court did not err in determining the issue of voluntariness.
Finally, as to appellant’s contention that the trial court erred in failing to grant a mistrial after the prosecutor injected new facts into his closing argument, we affirm. The prosecutor was commenting on the evidence presented and suggesting a different conclusion as to its import. In overruling the appellant’s objection the trial court instructed the jury that each side was merely arguing its position based on the evidence, but the jury was the final arbiter of the facts. The prosecutor’s argument did not constitute reversible error. See State v. Murray, 443 So. 2d 955 (Fla.1984).
Affirmed.
WARNER, KLEIN and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tramontano v. State, 778 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…evaluation of the impact of her caseload on her ability to represent her client. Finally, we find no error in the denial of the motions for judgment of acquittal and for new trial. See State v. Law, 559 So. 2d 187, 188 (Fla.1989); Harding v. State, 643 So. 2d 100, 100 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). AFFIRMED. DELL, STEVENSON and GROSS, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Murray, 443 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 1984)
- Taylor v. State, 583 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 1991)
- Burns v. State, 584 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)