STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM ARLIN STRICKLAND, 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 appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to grant the defendant a new trial, holding that the state failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion by the trial judge.
No, the state failed to show that the trial judge abused their discretion in granting the defendant a new trial.
“Such motion is directed to the sound discretion of the trial judge whose ruling thereon will not be disturbed in the absence of a clear showing of abuse.”
Establishes the standard of review for orders granting a 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 intelligenceThe state appealed an order from the trial court that granted the defendant a new trial. The trial judge had observed the proceedings, including the w…
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
The state appeals an order granting the defendant a new trial. Such motion is directed to the sound discretion of the trial judge whose ruling thereon will not be disturbed in the absence of a clear showing of abuse. Gelfo v. General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp., Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 31; Huffman v. Heagy, Fla.App.1964, 159 So.2d 907; Morin v. Halpern, Fla.App.1962, 139 So.2d 495. In the present case the heavy burden resting on the appellant has not been sustained.
The trial judge, having observed the witnesses, the jury and respective counsel, was best positioned to rule on the motion — and it is axiomatic that a stronger showing is required to upset an order granting a new trial than an order denying a new trial. Simpson v. Clay, Fla.App.1962, 139 So.2d 494; Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 669.
Affirmed.
WHITE, Acting C. J., ANDREWS, J., and RAWLS, JOHN S., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Baker v. State, 336 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 1976)…rP. Accordingly, the “trial judge has a wide discretion in the matter of granting or denying [motions for new trial] which we will not overthrow unless some abuse is shown.” State v. Sears, 148 Fla. 89, 3 So. 2d 721, 722 (1941). State v. Strickland, 172 So. 2d 260 (Fla.App.2d 1965). Only very rarely should the trial court’s determination be disturbed, see Hicks v. State, 127 Fla. 669, 173 So. 815 (1937); Solis v. State, 262 So. 2d 9 (Fla.App.2d 1972) cert. den., 265 So. 2d 372 (Fla.1972); Douth v. State, supr…
-
State v. Brown, 177 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)…as exercising its discretion. Accordingly, we hold that the State has not carried the heavy burden necessary to reverse a trial court in the exercise of sound •discretion in the granting of a motion for new trial. State v. Strickland, Fla.App. 1965,172 So. 2d 260. Affirmed. SHANNON, Acting C. J., and SMITH, J., concur.…
-
Simari v. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co., 179 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)…proceedings. To the same effect see the later decision of the same court in Steel Joist Institute, Inc. v. J. H. Mann, III, Inc., 171 So. 2d 625 (1965), and that of the Third District Court of Appeal in Lake v. Lucayan Beach Hotel Company, Limited, 172 So. 2d 260 (1960). Probably the most persuasive authority supporting the appellants’ contentions in the present appeal is the landmark case of International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95, 161 A.L.R. 1057 (1945), the…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1959)
- Armand G. Morin v. Halpern, 139 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Simpson v. Clay, 139 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Huffman v. Heagy, 159 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Gelfo v. Gen. Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp., Ltd., 167 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)