STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIE BROWN, 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 State appeals a trial court's grant of a new trial for a robbery conviction. The court was entitled to exercise its discretion in granting the motion where the jury was presented with conflicting but equally credible evidence, and the trial court considered stipulated polygraph test results.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial. Although polygraph tests are generally inadmissible, they are admissible where the parties stipulate to their use. The State did not carry the heavy burden necessary to reverse a trial court's discretionary decision to grant a new trial.
“These facts presented to the jury two equally creditable theories of the case: the first pointing unerringly to the guilt of the accused, and the other pointing unerringly to the innocence of the accused.”
Establishes that the evidence presented competing but equally credible narratives, justifying the trial court's doubt and basis for 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 intelligenceWillie Brown was convicted of robbery based on witness testimony identifying him, witness accounts of flight from the crime scene, and circumstantial …
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.
The defendant Willie Brown was convicted of robbery. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for a new trial, from which order the State appeals.
The State presented a strong case against the defendant by witnesses of the flight of the robber from the scene of the crime, identification of the defendant, and circumstantial evidence in the form of clothing worn by the robber.
The Public Defender presented a strong defense of alibi by numerous witnesses testifying that the defendant had worked on the day of the crime, was not absent from his work at the time the crime was committed, and in fact was at lunch with one of his fellow workers at about the time the crime was shown to be committed.
These facts presented to the jury two equally creditable theories of the case: the first pointing unerringly to the guilt of the accused, and the other pointing unerringly to the innocence of the accused. On motion for new trial, the court entertained some doubt as to the guilt of the defendant, and as a result the attorneys for the parties agreed that the defendant should be given the so-called “lie detector or polygraph test.”
The results of the first test showed that the defendant was telling the truth in that he did not commit the crime. The prosecutor was not satisfied with the test, and a second test was given, which resulted in a showing that the defendant was not telling the truth. The court then ordered a third test, which showed that the defendant was telling the truth.
*533Such tests are generally not admissible in evidence and should be excluded upon the objection of any party. Johnson v. State, Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 798; Kaminski v. State, 1956, Fla., 63 So.2d 339. The court, however, in the Johnson v. State case, supra, quoted with approval the case of State v. Valdez, 1962, 91 Ariz. 274, 371 P.2d 894, holding that such tests are admissible where the parties stipulate as to their admissibility. In the case before the court here, we are not confronted with the same question, but the same rules should apply in that the parties stipulated, in effect, that the court could consider on a motion for new trial the so-called “lie detector or polygraph test.” The court in granting a new trial under the circumstances was 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Delap v. State, 440 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 1983)…ski v. State, 63 So. 2d 339 (Fla.1952). Such evidence is admissible where the parties stipulate or agree to its admissibility. Anderson v. State, 241 So. 2d 390 (Fla.1970), vacated, 408 U.S. 938, 92 S.Ct. 2868, 33 L.Ed.2d 758 (1972); State v. Brown, 177 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965). Defendant challenges this stipulation or consent requirement as an arbitrary eviden-tiary rule which operates to deny him a full and fair hearing on the voluntariness of his confession by preventing him from adducing important fa…
-
Baker v. State, 336 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 1976)…, and concluded, “If the proferred [sic] evidence cannot be admitted, it cannot affect the result of the trial.” 319 So. 2d at 610. Petitioner alleges a conflict between the District Court’s decision in this case and the decision in State v. Brown, 177 So. 2d 532 (Fla.App.2d 1965). As in the present case, the prosecution in State v. Brown, supra, appealed an order granting a new trial, after a robbery conviction. There as here the new trial was ordered on the basis of newly discovered evidence. The evidence…
-
Codie v. State, 313 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 1975)…3), Florida Constitution; Foley v. Weaver Drugs, Inc., 177 So. 2d 221 (Fla.1965). . 63 So. 2d 339 (Fla.1932). . 23 Fla. 546, 3 So. 158 (1887). . 262 So. 2d 253 (Fla.App.1972). . Kaminski v. State, supra, see Note 2, at p. 340. . State v. Brown, 177 So. 2d 532 (Fla.App.1965). . Loos v. Scarfone, 46 So. 2d 395 (Fla.1950). . Rule 3.191(d) (2) (i), Rules of Criminal Procedure. . 188 So. 2d 24 (Fla.App.1966). . Roberts v. State, 195 So. 2d 257, 258 (Fla.App.1967). .See Note 4, supra. . Cutchins v. Seab…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Kaminski v. State, 63 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 1952)
- Lucius B. Johnson v. State, 166 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- State v. Strickland, 172 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)