FLEMING
v.
STATE
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.
A trial court must review a videotape when the lower court's factual findings are premised on the videotape's contradiction of defendant's testimony.
[1] When a lower court's factual findings are expressly based on a determination that evidence contradicts a party's testimony, an appellate court reviewing the sufficiency o…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe county court made a factual finding regarding an altercation based partly on determining that a videotape contradicted the defendant's testimony. …
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 Departure From Essential Requirements Of Law cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Although the trial court properly decided the other issues on review, the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of law when it ruled it was legally barred from viewing the videotape of the *554altercation at the heart of this matter, as the State commendably concedes. Precisely because the county court expressly based its factual finding on a determination that the videotape contradicted the testimony of the defendant, the circuit court should have included a review of the videotape in deciding whether the county court's fact finding was supported by any competent substantial evidence.
Petition granted.