STATE
v.
HARTMAN
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 quashed appeal where defendant abandoned her motion for directed verdict by testifying after the motion was denied at close of state's case, allowing consideration of all evidence including defendant's own testimony in evaluating sufficiency of conviction.
When a defendant in a criminal case puts on testimony after a motion for directed verdict is denied at the close of the state's case, that motion is abandoned and the court may consider all evidence, including the defendant's testimony, in determining whether evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction.
[1] A defendant's motion for directed verdict in a criminal case is abandoned when the defendant testifies after the motion is denied at the close of the state's case, permit…
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“when a defendant in a criminal case puts on testimony after the motion for directed verdict is denied at the close of the state's case, that motion for directed verdict is abandoned and this court and the trial court has the right to consider all the evidence, including that of the defendant, to ascertain whether or not the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction”
Court's statement of the controlling legal rule regarding abandonment of directed verdict motions
Defendant was charged with a motor vehicle offense. The state failed to prove defendant was the driver of the vehicle at the close of its case, prompt…
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 Abandonment Of Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause came on to be heard before me on December 30,1959 on appellee’s motion to quash the above-styled cause.
The only challenge made by appellant on this appeal is that the court erred in failing to direct a verdict at the close of the county’s case on the ground that the county had failed to prove that the defendant was the driver of the motor vehicle in question. The record clearly establishes that after the denial of appellant’s motion for directed verdict she subsequently took the stand and admitted that she was the driver of the motor vehicle.
*18In keeping with the universally accepted rule, this court holds that when a defendant in a criminal case puts on testimony after the motion for directed verdict is denied at the close of the state’s case, that motion for directed verdict is abandoned and this court and the trial court has the right to consider all the evidence, including that of the defendant, to ascertain whether or not the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction. See T’Kach v. United States, 5 Cir., 242 Fed. 2d 937 and other cases cited in appellee’s motion to quash.
In view of the above holding, it is considered, ordered and adjudged that the appellee’s motion to quash be and the same is hereby granted and this appeal is hereby quashed.