STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
JOSEPH CONTRERAS, RESPONDENT
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 Florida Supreme Court held that a motion for a new trial is required in the trial court to preserve the sufficiency of the evidence for appellate review. This decision quashed a lower court ruling that allowed such review without a prior motion.
Yes, the filing of a motion for a new trial in the trial court is an indispensable condition precedent to appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence.
“The sole question presented here is whether the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal trial may be questioned on appeal in the absence of a motion for a new trial duly filed in the trial court wherein such question is appropriately raised and passed upon by the trial court.”
This quote frames the central legal issue of the case.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe respondent's conviction was appealed, and the appellate court reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence without the appellant having filed a motion…
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 Appellate Review cases and more on FLexlaw
The sole question presented here is whether the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal trial may be questioned on appeal in the absence of a motion for a new trial duly filed in the trial court wherein such question is appropriately raised and passed upon by the trial court. The district court held that the filing of such motion for a new trial was not an indispensable condition precedent to a review of the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, relying upon its decision filed November 22, 1968, in Wright v. State.1
The Wright case, supra, was reviewed by this Court and on June 18, 1969, this Court handed down its decision,2 holding that the filing of such motion is essential to appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence and that Rule 6.16, subd. b, Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A., did not in any way change such requirement. On the authority of the decision of this Court in State v. Wright, supra, certiorari is granted, the decision of the district court insofar as it relates to the subject matter of these proceedings is quashed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, THORN-AL and CARLTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Wright, 224 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 1969)
- Wright v. State, 216 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)