WILLIAM FRANCIS ROBERTS, APPELLANT,
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.
William Francis Roberts appealed his conviction for aggravated assault with a firearm, challenging the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal and the trial court's refusal to reread witness testimony. The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury verdict and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to reread testimony.
The trial court properly denied the motion for judgment of acquittal because the evidence was sufficient to support conviction, and contradictory evidence does not warrant acquittal as credibility is solely for the jury. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to reread testimony, as trial courts have broad discretion in such matters.
[1] A trial court is not required to grant a motion for judgment of acquittal when the evidence presented is contradictory, as the weight of the evidence and credibility of w…
[2] A trial court has broad discretion in deciding whether to have testimony re-read to the jury.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“the fact that the evidence presented is contradictory does not warrant a judgment of acquittal because the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses are questions solely for the jury”
Establishes the legal standard that contradictory evidence alone cannot support judgment of acquittal, as credibility determinations are reserved for the jury.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRoberts was convicted by jury of aggravated assault with a firearm. At trial, evidence was presented, though some testimony was contradictory. During …
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 Jury'S Role cases and more on FLexlaw
MONACO, J.
William Francis Roberts appeals from the judgment and sentence of the trial court in which he was adjudged guilty of an aggravated assault1 with a firearm after having been convicted of that offense by a jury. We affirm the judgment and sentence in all respects.
Mr. Roberts first asserts that the trial court should have granted his motion for judgment of acquittal. Leaving aside the issue of whether the alleged error was preserved for appeal, we conclude that the motion was properly denied in any event. The Florida Supreme Court has told us on a number of occasions that the fact that the evidence presented is contradictory does not warrant a judgment of acquittal because the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses are questions solely for the jury. See Williams v. State, 967 So. 2d 735 (Fla.2007); Fitzpatrick v. State, 900 So. 2d 495, 508 (Fla.2005). See also State v. Lalor, 842 So. 2d 217, 219-20 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Here, there was more than sufficient evidence to convict Mr. Roberts of the crime.
Next, Mr. Roberts urges that the trial court erred in declining to read back the testimony of one of the witnesses when a single juror requested him to do so. The court met with the parties and determined that it was not inclined to honor the request. We note, first, that there was no objection by Mr. Roberts to the trial court’s decision not to read back the testimony, and we accordingly conclude that the purported error was not preserved. Secondly, the claim is without merit. A trial court has broad discretion in deciding whether to have testimony re-read to the jury. See State v. Riechmann, 777 So. 2d 342, 365 (Fla.2000); Coleman v. State, 610 So. 2d 1283, 1286 (Fla.1992), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 921, 114 S.Ct. 321, 126 L.Ed.2d 267 (1993); Roper v. State, 608 So. 2d 533, 535 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). Here, it is clear that the trial court considered the request of the juror and made a reasoned decision not to have the testimony re-read. We find no abuse of discretion.
Accordingly, the judgment and sentence is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
ORFINGER and LAWSON, JJ., concur. . See § 784.021(l)(a) and § 775.087(2), Fla. Stat. (2004).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Fitzpatrick v. State, 900 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 2005)
- Williams v. State, 967 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 2007)
- State v. Dieter Riechmann, 777 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 2000)
- Coleman v. State, 610 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 1992)
- Roper v. State, 608 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)
- State v. Rosalvo Lalor, Jr., 842 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Shimek v. Florida, 510 U.S. 921 (U.S. 1993)
- Gunter v. Texas, 510 U.S. 921 (U.S. 1993)