CLIFFORD FULWORD, 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.
Clifford Fulword appeals the trial court's denial of his motion for new trial following a jury conviction for robbery with a firearm and aggravated battery with a firearm. The appellate court reversed because the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard when evaluating whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
The trial court erred by failing to apply the proper standard under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.600(a)(2). When considering a motion for new trial based on a claim that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, the trial court must exercise its discretion to determine whether a greater amount of credible evidence supports one side or the other, not merely defer to the jury's credibility determinations.
[1] A trial court must weigh the evidence and determine witness credibility when ruling on a motion for a new trial based on the verdict being against the weight of the evide…
[2] A trial court acts as an "additional juror" when considering whether the weight of the evidence supports a jury verdict.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 trial court must exercise its discretion to determine 'whether a greater amount of credible evidence supports one side of an issue or the other.'”
Establishes the correct standard for evaluating weight of evidence in Rule 3.600(a)(2) motions for new trial
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFulword was tried for robbery with a firearm and aggravated battery with a firearm. The State's case rested solely on testimony from the alleged victi…
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 Aggravated Battery With A Firearm cases and more on FLexlaw
Clifford Fulword timely appeals the order denying his motion for new trial, filed after an Orange County jury found him guilty of robbery with a firearm and aggravated battery with a firearm. The State concedes that the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard when addressing Fulword’s motion. We agree, and reverse with directions that the trial court reconsider the motion, applying the correct standard.
The State’s case against Fulword rested solely on the trial testimony of Shawn Swallow, the alleged victim. Swallow’s testimony was somewhat disjointed, and at times appeared inconsistent. Fulword’s new trial motion argued, in part, that the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence due to inconsistencies in Swallow’s account of the events at issue. In denying the motion, the trial court stated in pertinent part:
*426Well, I think clearly the matter of credibility of witnesses is a matter for the jury, as is the issue of intent.
It was the jury — jury’s job to determine credibility and the jury’s job to determine whether or not the State had proved the requisite intent on these two charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
However, when considering a motion for new trial under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.600(a)(2), based on a claim that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, the trial court must exercise its discretion to determine “whether a greater amount of credible evidence supports one side of an issue or the other.” Geibel v. State, 817 So.2d 1042, 1044 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (citation omitted) (emphasis added); see also Moore v. State, 800 So.2d 747, 749 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (when determining whether a verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence, “ ‘the trial court acts as a safety valve by granting a new trial where the evidence is technically sufficient to prove the criminal charge but the weight of the evidence does not appear to support the jury verdict’ ”) (quoting State v. Hart, 632 So.2d 134, 135 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)) (citation omitted). Thus, rule 3.600(a)(2) “ ‘enables the trial judge to weigh the evidence and determine the credibility of witnesses so as to act, in effect, as an additional juror.’ ” Id. (quoting Tibbs v. State, 397 So.2d 1120, 1123 n. 9 (Fla.1981), affirmed, 457 U.S. 31, 102 S.Ct. 2211, 72 L.Ed.2d 652 (1982)). As conceded by the State, it does not appear from the trial court’s oral ruling that the judge applied this standard when considering Fulword’s motion for new trial. Accordingly, we reverse the order denying Fulword’s motion and remand the case back to the trial court to consider the weight of the evidence when ruling on his motion. E.g., Guebara v. State, 856 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (concluding that the trial court applied the wrong standard when ruling on defendant’s motion for a new trial, and matter was remanded to the trial court to reconsider the motion); Moore, 800 So.2d at 750 (reversing the order denying the motion for new trial and remanding case to the trial court to consider the weight of the evidence, rather than the sufficiency of the evidence, when ruling on the motion for new trial).
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
ORFINGER and TORPY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Bell v. State, 248 So. 3d 208 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)…trial by simply saying, "I don't see that I have any legal basis to grant a new trial, so I'll deny the motion." The Second District reversed because it could not tell whether the trial court applied the proper standard.* Id. In Fulword v. State , 29 So. 3d 425 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010), the trial court orally denied a motion for new trial based on the manifest weight of the evidence stating, "Well, I think clearly the matter of credibility of witnesses is a matter for the jury, as is the issue of intent." The F…
-
Jordan v. State, 244 So. 3d 1178 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
-
LEE v. State, 117 So. 3d 848 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)…sed on a claim that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, the trial court is compelled to exercise its discretion to determine “whether a greater amount of credible evidence supports one side of an issue or the other.” Fulword v. State, 29 So. 3d 425 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (citing Geibel v. State, 817 So. 2d 1042, 1044 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)). The trial court under these circumstances acts as a “safety valve” by considering [*850] whether to grant a new trial where “the evidence is technically sufficie…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31 (U.S. 1982)
- Delbert Lee Tibbs v. State, 397 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 1981)
- Geibel v. State, 817 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Moore v. State, 800 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- State v. Hart, 632 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Rufino Guebara v. State, 856 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)