MARTIN J. PETERSON, 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.
Martin Peterson appealed his conviction for five counts of sexual battery and one count of lewd or lascivious molestation of his adopted daughter. The Fifth District Court of Appeal found that while Peterson's other appellate claims were meritless, the trial court erred by refusing to reweigh witness credibility when evaluating his motion for a new trial, requiring remand for proper application of the legal standard.
The trial court erred by refusing to reweigh credibility. Under Florida law, when a criminal defendant moves for a new trial pursuant to Rule 3.600(a)(2), the trial court must exercise discretion to determine whether a greater amount of credible evidence supports one side of an issue or the other, effectively acting as an additional juror by weighing evidence and evaluating witness credibility.
[1] A trial court must weigh the evidence and evaluate witness credibility when considering a motion for a new trial.
[2] A trial court errs by stating it will not reweigh credibility when ruling on a motion for a new trial.
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“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 legal standard for trial court review of motions for new trial, requiring the judge to act as an additional juror.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePeterson was convicted of five counts of sexual battery and one count of lewd or lascivious molestation on his adopted daughter. Peterson filed a moti…
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 Motion For New Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
Martin J. Peterson (“Appellant”) appeals his judgment and life sentence after he was found guilty of five counts of sexual battery and one count of lewd or lascivious molestation on his adopted daughter. Appellant raises multiple issues on appeal, all of which are without merit except one — whether the trial court applied the correct legal standard when evaluating Appellant’s motion for a new trial pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.600.1
Appellant argues — and the State expressly admits — that the trial court erred by stating it would not reweigh credibility, as follows:
THE COURT: All right. Then on the amended motion having to do with me reweighing the credibility of the victim witness, the amended motion is gonna be denied.
DEFENSE: As to argument one, the first argument I presented?
THE COURT: Yes.
DEFENSE: Okay.
THE COURT: With regard to conflicts in the testimony and the credibility of the victim witness, I’m not going there. That was for the jury to decide and they decided those issues.
We previously held in Fulword v. State, 29 So.3d 425, 426 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010), that where a criminal defendant moves for a new trial pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.600(a)(2), 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.’ ” (quoting Geibel v. State, 817 So.2d 1042, 1044 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)). This requires the trial judge to act, in effect, as an additional juror by weighing the evidence and evaluating the credibility of witnesses. Id. Here, the trial court did not apply this standard. Accordingly, we affirm Appellant’s meritless issues but reverse and remand for the trial court to apply the correct legal standard when considering Appellant’s motion for new trial.
*221AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part, and REMANDED with instructions.
PALMER and COHEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Geibel v. State, 817 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Fulword v. State, 29 So. 3d 425 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)