STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
JESSE FRANKLIN BATTERTON, 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 affirmed the trial court's order granting a new trial, finding no abuse of discretion.
The State appealed the trial court's order granting Jesse Batterton's motion for a new trial. The appellate court reviewed the standard for granting a…
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 Motion For New Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The State timely appeals the trial court’s order granting Jesse Batterton’s motion for new trial. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(c)(1)(C).
The standard of review of a trial court’s decision on a motion for new trial is well settled:
A motion for a new trial is addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the trial court, and the presumption is that [it] exercised that discretion properly. And the general rule is that unless it clearly appears that the trial court abused its discretion, the action of the trial court will not be disturbed by the appellate court.
State v. Spaziano, 692 So. 2d 174, 177 (Fla.1997)(quoting Henderson v. State, 135 Fla. 548, 561, 185 So. 625, 630 (1938))(Brown, J., concurring specially, with Terrell, C.J., and Whitfield and Chapman, JJ., concurring). Because we believe that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we will not disturb the trial court’s action. See Fulton v. State, 335 So. 2d 280, 283-84 (Fla.1976)(“[I]t is clear that if a witness for the State were presently or recently under actual or threatened criminal charges or investigation leading to such criminal charges, a person against whom such witness testifies in a criminal case has an absolute right to bring those circumstances out on cross-examination”).
AFFIRMED.
THOMPSON, C.J, COBB and PLEUS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Moore v. State, 800 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…on. The standard of review for a motion for new trial is abuse of discretion. See Stephens v. State, 787 So. 2d 747 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 556, — L.Ed.2d - (2001); State v. Spaziano, 692 So. 2d 174 (Fla.1997); State v. Batterton, 784 So. 2d 1259 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Chatmon v. State, 738 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). In order to demonstrate abuse of discretion, “the nonprevail-ing party must establish that no reasonable person would take the view taken by the trial court.” Stephens, 787 So…
Authorities Cited
- Fulton v. State, 335 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 1976)
- Henderson v. State, 135 Fla. 548 (Fla. 1938)
- State v. Spaziano, 692 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 1997)