EDWARD JOSEPH WAGNER, JR. AND JOAN S. WAGNER, APPELLANTS,
v.
LEE THIGPEN AND DORSIL RAY REAVES, A MINOR, APPELLEES
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.
This case involves an appeal from a denial of a motion for a new trial in an automobile negligence case. The appellants, as the losing plaintiffs, sought a new trial based on newly discovered evidence from an eyewitness. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion.
No, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial because the appellants failed to demonstrate that the newly discovered eyewitness testimony would probably change the jury's original verdict.
“We do not believe that the testimony of this witness necessarily demonstrates that the defendants' witnesses gave false testimony, and appellants have failed clearly to show that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that the proffered evidence was not such as would probably change the result reached by the jury in the original trial if a new trial were to be granted.”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for affirming the denial of the motion for a new trial, focusing on the failure to show the new evidence would likely change the outcome.
The appellants were the plaintiffs in an automobile negligence case and lost at trial. They filed a motion for a new trial, asserting they had discove…
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 Automobile Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants, who were the losing plaintiffs in an automobile negligence case, complain of the lower court’s action in denying their motion for a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence, to wit, the testimony of an eyewitness who could not have been found with due diligence up to the time of trial.
We do not believe that the testimony of this witness necessarily demonstrates that the defendants’ witnesses gave false testimony, and appellants have failed clearly to show that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that the proffered evidence was not such as would probably change the result reached by the jury in the original trial if a new trial were to be granted.
Accordingly, the judgment below is affirmed.
WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., JOHNSON and SACK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bolin v. State, 297 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…that Florida courts are in line with the majority holding, in essence, that the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt never shifts from the state. See also, McDaniel v. State, Fla.App.1965, 179 So. 2d 576; Burnias v. State, Fla.App.1966, 190 So. 2d 612. This standard broadly includes the requirement that the state prove that the defendant did not act in self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. We further agree with the Maine court that when the defendant raises self-defense as an issue at trial it…