TIMOTHY MURPHY, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Court granted defendant's motion for new trial because the trial transcript contained irremediable omissions and egregious errors that could not be reconstructed, violating due process.
A new trial must be granted when the trial transcript contains substantial and irremediable omissions and obvious errors that cannot be satisfactorily reconstructed.
[1] When a trial transcript contains irremediable and substantial omissions and obvious errors that cannot be satisfactorily reconstructed despite good-faith efforts, a new t…
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 intelligenceThe trial transcript in this criminal case contained significant omissions and errors, and the parties stipulated that extensive reconstruction effort…
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 Reconstruction Of Record cases and more on FLexlaw
On Agreed Motion For New Trial
PER CURIAM.
The transcript of the trial in this case contains irremediable and substantial omissions and obvious and egregious errors in the portions which do exist. Moreover, it has been stipulated that no efforts of the parties, including the extensive proceedings already undertaken in an unsuccessful attempt to do so, can result in a satisfactory reconstruction of the record below. On these grounds, the defendant has moved for a new trial and the state has candidly agreed that one is required in the interest of justice and due process. After our independent review of the pertinent documents, we grant the motion. Delap v. State, 350 So. 2d 462 (Fla.1977); Blasco v. State, 680 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), review denied, 689 So. 2d 1072 (Fla.1997); accord, Jones v. State, 780 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); McKenzie v. State, 754 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Roberts v. State, 766 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Bogdanowicz v. State, 744 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Rozier v. State, 669 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Fairell v. State, 662 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Felton v. State, 523 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Simmons v. State, 200 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967).
Accordingly, the conviction and sentence below are vacated and the cause is remanded for a new trial.
Motion for new trial granted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited (11 total)
- Delap v. State, 350 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 1977)
- Jones v. State, 780 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Fairell v. State, 662 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Rozier v. State, 669 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Harris v. Jewett, 200 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Simmons v. State, 200 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)
- Blasco v. State, 680 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- McKENZIE v. State, 754 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Felton v. State, 523 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Bogdanowicz v. State, 744 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)