DAVID MURRAY, 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.
The court held that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the adjudication of the defendant as a sexually violent predator, even if the issue had been preserved.
David Murray was adjudicated a sexually violent predator and committed to the Florida Civil Commitment Center. The appeal questions the legal sufficie…
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 Conflicting Expert Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal of a judgment which adjudicated David Murray a sexually violent predator and committed him to the Florida Civil Commitment Center pursuant to the Jimmy Ryce Act. See §§ 394.910-.931, Fla. Stat. (2005). The question is whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support the adjudication.
First, the point was not properly preserved for appellate review. The defense *782made timely motions for a directed verdict. However, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.480(b) has been interpreted as requiring a party to file, in addition, a post-verdict motion for entry of judgment in accordance with the motion for a directed verdict. Fulton County Adm’r v. Sullivan, 753 So.2d 549, 558-54 (Fla.1999); Brown v. State, 940 So.2d 609, 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Industrial Affiliates, Ltd. v. Testa, 770 So.2d 202, 203-04 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). In this case no such post verdict motion was filed.
Second, assuming for purposes of discussion that the point was properly preserved, we conclude that the case was properly submitted to the jury to resolve the conflicting expert testimony regarding whether the defendant qualified under the Act. See State v. Shaw, 929 So.2d 1145 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Galloway v. State, 900 So.2d 652 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). See generally Westerheide v. State, 831 So.2d 93 (Fla.2002).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gering v. State, 252 So. 3d 334 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Westerheide v. State, 831 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 2002)
- Fulton Cnty. Adm'r v. Sullivan, 753 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 1999)
- Mendes v. State, 770 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Indus. Affiliates, Ltd. v. Testa, 770 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- State v. Shaw, 929 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Brown v. State, 940 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Galloway v. State, 900 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)