ERNEST N. BELL AND JAMES CLAYTON CLEMONS, APPELLANTS,
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.
Bell and Clemons appealed their convictions for breaking and entering with intent to commit felony and grand larceny, challenging the trial judge's denial of their motion for a new trial based on an accomplice's affidavit recanting his trial testimony. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in rejecting the recantation given the accomplice's pattern of repeatedly changing his story.
The trial judge did not abuse discretion in denying the motion for new trial. While recantation by prosecution witnesses may constitute grounds for a new trial if credible, courts must exercise caution when the recanting testimony involves a confession of perjury, particularly where the witness has a history of changing statements.
“A material error or misstatement in the testimony of a witness for the prosecution may constitute ground for a new trial. Where therefore it appears, that, on a new trial, the witness will change his testimony to such an extent as to render probable a different verdict, the new trial will be granted. But recantation by witnesses called on behalf of the prosecution does not necessarily entitle defendant to a new trial.”
Establishes the legal standard for when recanting testimony may support a new trial, but clarifies it is not automatic.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilkins was the accomplice to the crimes charged. Immediately after arrest, Wilkins told arresting officers that appellants participated in the crime.…
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 Sound Judicial Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
ROBERTS, Justice.
The appellants have appealed from verdicts and judgments convicting them of the offenses of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony and grand lar- • ceny. The sole issue presented on this appeal is whether the trial judge erred in denying their motion for new trial, based upon the affidavit of an accomplice, one Wilkins, that he had testified falsely against them at the trial.
The rule for our guidance in this situation was stated in Henderson v. State, 135 Fla. 548, 185 So. 625, 630, 120 A.L.R. 742, citing 16 C.J. 1188, et seq., as follows:
“ ‘A material error or misstatement in the testimony of a witness for the prosecution may constitute ground for a new trial. Where therefore it appears, that, on a new trial, the witness will change his testimony to such an extent as to render probable a different verdict, the new trial will be granted. But recantation by witnesses called on behalf of the prosecution does not necessarily entitle defendant to a new trial. The question whether a new trial shall be granted on this ground depends on all the circumstances of the case, including the testimony of the witnesses submitted on the motion for the new trial. Moreover, recanting testimony is exceedingly unreliable, and it is the duty of the court to deny a new trial where it is not satisfied that such testimony is true. Especially is this true where the recantation involves a confession of perjury. * * *’” See, also, 23 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 1454.
Here, the only direct evidence implicating the appellants in the crimes was that of Wilkins, although there was circumstantial evidence against them. However, it was shown at the trial that, immediately after his arrest, Wilkins stated to the arresting officers that the appellants participated in the crime with him; that he recanted this statement at the preliminary hearing and said that the appellants were not involved; and, as shown in his testimony at the trial he reverted to his original statement and implicated the appellants. By the affidavit filed in support of the motion for new trial, he has again recanted a prior statement and now says that he swore falsely at the trial. In these circumstances, the trial judge’s skepticism as to the truth of the matter contained in the affidavit is understandable.
It is well settled that a motion for new trial is addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the trial court and that, unless an abuse of such discretion is clearly shown, the action of the trial court in this respect will not be disturbed. We find no abuse of discretion, in the circumstances shown by this record, so the judgments appealed from should be and they are hereby
Affirmed.
DREW, C. J., THOMAS, J., and OGIL-VIE, Associate Justice, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (33 total)
-
Lancelot Armstrong v. State, 642 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1994)…rial. Recantation by a witness called on behalf of the prosecution does not necessarily entitle a defendant to a new trial. Brown v. State, 381 So. 2d 690 (Fla.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1118, 101 S.Ct. 931, 66 L.Ed.2d 847 (1981); Bell v. State, 90 So. 2d 704 (Fla.1956). In determining whether a new trial is warranted due to recantation of a witness’s testimony, a trial judge is to examine all the circumstances of the ease, including the testimony of the witnesses submitted on the motion for the new tria…
-
Mosley v. State, 209 So. 3d 1248 (Fla. 2016)…no, 692 So. 2d 174, 178 (Fla. 1997)). This case involves the testimony of a recanting witness, which this Court has observed is, “as a general matter, ‘exceedingly unreliable.’ ” Spann v. State, 91 So. 3d 812, 816 (Fla. 2012) (quoting Bell v. State, 90 So. 2d 704, 705 (Fla. 1956)). Upon a full review of the record, the postconviction court’s order, and the parties’ arguments, we deny this claim because competent, substantial evidence supports the postconviction court’s findings. In attempting to establish t…
-
Johnston v. State, 497 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 1986)…ial which refers to all objections made at trial. Given the fact that an appellate court will not overturn a trial court’s order granting or denying a new trial absent an abuse of discretion, Baker v. State, 336 So. 2d 364 (Fla.1976); Bell v. State, 90 So. 2d 704 (Fla.1956), and all of the grounds alleged in the motion for a new trial are without merit, we refuse to overturn the trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion for a new trial. Warren v. State, 443 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Nevertheless,…
Previewing 3 of 33 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Henderson v. State, 135 Fla. 548 (Fla. 1938)