STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
DAVID T. MONROE, 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.
The appellate court held that the trial judge abused his discretion in granting a new trial based solely on disbelief of evidence when the evidence overwhelmingly pointed to the defendant.
The trial court granted the defendant a new trial, primarily due to the judge's disbelief in the identification evidence presented by the state, despi…
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 Weight And Credibility Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK, Judge.
In this case we are asked to review the trial court’s granting of a new trial to the defendant. The trial court judge based his decision primarily on his dissatisfaction with the identification evidence tendered by the state. He simply did not believe that the defendant had committed the crimes with which he was charged. The judge adhered to his disbelief in spite of the fact that all of the eyewitness testimony and all of the physical evidence, with the exception of a single photograph, pointed to the defendant as the perpetrator. Furthermore, the defendant’s alibi, as even the judge admitted, was not credible.
We are mindful of the standard that accords great discretion to a trial judge who assesses the weight and credibility of evidence on a motion for new trial. The judge sits “as the seventh juror with a veto over the unanimous vote of the other six.” State v. Smyly, 646 So. 2d 238, 241 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (citing Tibbs v. State, 397 So. 2d 1120, 1123 (Fla.1981)). The trial court’s discretion, however, is not unbounded; and in this case we are compelled to conclude that the judge exceeded his limits.
We have also reviewed the other grounds for the granting of the new trial, which are errors of law regarding instructions to the jury and the admission of evidence, and we have concluded that the errors, if any, were harmless. Thus, we cannot sustain the trial court’s order on those grounds. See State v. Lewis, 543 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).
Reversed and remanded for reinstatement of the jury verdict.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and PARKER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Coffman, 746 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…to the weight of the evidence. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.600(a)(2); see also Tibbs; Smyly. Thus, before this court can reverse a new trial order predicated on that basis, it must conclude that the trial court abused its discretion. See State v. Monroe, 691 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). In Monroe, we acknowledged that a trial judge is accorded great discretion in assessing the weight and credibility of the evidence on a motion for new trial. Id. at 519. We also stated that such discretion is not without its limi…
-
State v. Telly Lenard Andrews, 820 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…uilty of aggravated child abuse based on malicious punishment and State’s experts’ testimony clearly negated any reasonable hypothesis that the child’s injuries occurred as a result of something or someone other than the defendant); State v. Monroe, 691 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (reversing order granting a new trial on the basis of weight of the evidence where all of the eye witness testimony and all of the physical evidence, with the exception of a single photograph, pointed to the defendant as the perpe…
Authorities Cited
- Delbert Lee Tibbs v. State, 397 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 1981)
- Stocker v. State, 646 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- State v. Lewis, 543 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)