STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
HUBERT OWENS, 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 rejected a District Court of Appeal's decision that allowed a defendant to challenge the sufficiency of evidence on appeal without filing a motion for new trial in the trial court. The Court held that Florida law and appellate rules require a motion for new trial as a prerequisite to challenging sufficiency of evidence on appeal in criminal cases, except in capital cases.
A motion for new trial based on alleged insufficiency of evidence must be filed as a prerequisite to any questioning of the sufficiency of evidence on appeal in a criminal case. A motion for directed verdict does not satisfy this requirement. The only exception to this rule is in cases in which a criminal defendant is sentenced to death.
[1] The filing of a motion for new trial based on alleged insufficiency of evidence is a prerequisite to questioning the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal in a criminal c…
[2] The requirement to file a motion for new trial based on insufficient evidence before appealing that issue applies to both jury and non-jury criminal trials.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Florida Appellate Rule 6.-16(b), 32 F.S.A. and a line of cases, the most recent of which is State v. Wright, supra, require that a motion for a new trial based on the alleged insufficiency of the evidence be filed as a prerequisite to any questioning of a sufficiency of the evidence on appeal in a criminal case, the only exception being a case in which a criminal defendant is sentenced to death.”
This establishes the mandatory procedural requirement for raising sufficiency of evidence challenges on criminal appeal and identifies the sole exception.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHubert Owens was charged with breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony and grand larceny. He was tried by jury, found guilty, and sentence…
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 Breaking And Entering With Intent To Commit A Felony cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District. Jttrisdict'ion is based on the conflict between the decision of the District Court of Appeal herein, reported at 227 So.2d 241, and the decision of this Court in State v. Wright, 224 So.2d 300 (Fla. 1969).
Respondent Owens was charged with breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony and grand larceny. He was tried by a jury, found guilty and sentenced to 15 years for breaking and entering and five years for grand larceny, the latter sentence to run concurrently with the former.
*390On appeal to the District Court, Owens contended that there was a total lack of evidence to show that the value of the property in question was $100 or more. The State conceded that the evidence of value was insufficient but asserted that Owens had no standing to raise this point on appeal inasmuch as no motion for new trial was made in the trial court. The position of the State is difficult to understand since the uncontradicted testimony of the owner was that the property stolen, consisting of two .22 caliber pistols, a leather holster, and a wrist watch, had a value of $267.
The District Court reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial holding that, although there was no motion made for new trial, the matter had been adequately presented to the trial court on motion for a directed verdict made at the conclusion of all the evidence. The District Court distinguished State v. Wright, supra, and other cases holding that the sufficiency of the evidence may not be challenged on appeal unless presented to the trial court on a motion for new trial, stating:1
“However, our reading of them does not foreclose or prohibit an alternate method of presenting the matter to the trial judge by motion for a directed verdict. The important criteria, as we understand it, is that the trial court should have the opportunity to assess the sufficiency of the evidence.”
We understand the natural reluctance of the District Court to foreclose respondent’s opportunity to question the sufficiency of the evidence in view of the State’s concession. However, Florida Appellate Rule 6.-16(b), 32 F.S.A. and a line of cases, the most recent of which is State v. Wright, supra, require that a motion for a new trial based on the alleged insufficiency of the evidence be filed as a prerequisite to any questioning of a sufficiency of the evidence on appeal in a criminal case, the only exception being a case in which a criminal defendant is sentenced to death.
Accordingly, the decision of the District Court is quashed and the cause remanded with instructions to affirm the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court.
It is so ordered.
DREW, Acting C. J., THORNAL and ADKINS, JJ„ and SPECTOR, District Court Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
State v. Barber, 301 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 1974)…rsuant to Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla.Const., F.S.A., on the basis of direct conflict between the decision of the First District Court of Appeal in this cause, reported at 286 So. 2d 23 (1973); Mancini v. State, 273 So. 2d 371 (Fla.1973); State v. Owens, 233 So. 2d 389 (Fla.1970); State v. Wright, 224 So. 2d 300 (Fla.1969); Chester v. State, 276 So. 2d 76 (Fla.App.2d 1973). Respondents were convicted of two counts of breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny, and were sentenced to two years impris…
-
Mancini v. State, 273 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 1973)…verdict on the ground that proof of value of the property taken was not presented, failure to move after verdict for a new trial did not preclude the defendant from raising such an issue on appeal. Owens was reversed by this Court in State v. Owens, 233 So. 2d 389 (Fla.1970), on April 9, 1970, and holds (as did Wright) that a motion for new trial based on alleged insufficiency of the evidence must be filed as a prerequisite to any questioning of the sufficiency of evidence on appeal in criminal cases. [*373]…1 / 2
-
Williams v. State, 516 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…on the ground that proof of value of the property taken was not presented, failure to move after the verdict for a new trial did not preclude the defendant from raising the issue on appeal. Owens was reversed by the supreme court in State v. Owens, 233 So. 2d 389 (Fla.1970) and held (as did Wright) that a motion for new trial based on alleged insufficiency of the evidence must be filed as a prerequisite to any question of sufficiency of the evidence on appeal in criminal cases. The supreme court in Mancini…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Wright, 224 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 1969)
- Owens v. State, 227 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)