GAIL ELLIOTT, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Appellant Elliott challenges his conviction for leaving the scene of an accident without rendering aid or providing identifying information. The court affirms the conviction because appellant failed to file a motion for new trial challenging the sufficiency of evidence, which is a procedural prerequisite to appellate review of that issue.
The court holds that filing a motion for new trial based on alleged insufficiency of evidence is a prerequisite to any questioning of the sufficiency of evidence upon appeal. Because appellant failed to file such a motion, the appellate court cannot consider the sufficiency of evidence challenge.
[1] A motion for a new trial based on alleged insufficiency of evidence is a prerequisite to questioning the sufficiency of evidence on appeal in a criminal case, absent a de…
[2] A motion for a directed verdict at the conclusion of all evidence does not substitute for a motion for a new trial to preserve for appellate review the sufficiency of evi…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“the making and denial of a motion for new trial by the defendant based upon the insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict was a necessary prerequisite to a consideration of that question on appeal”
Establishes the procedural requirement for challenging sufficiency of evidence on appeal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was convicted by jury of willfully leaving the scene of an accident without stopping to render aid to the injured person or providing his fu…
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
Appellant seeks review of a judgment of conviction and sentence based upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of willfully leaving the scene of an accident without stopping to render aid to the person injured by him or making known to the persons present his full and correct name and address. The sole point on appeal challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict and judgment.
An examination of the record on appeal affirmatively establishes, and it is not denied, that appellant failed at any time to make a motion for new trial in which the sufficiency of the evidence could have been challenged at the trial court level. In the cases of Jones v. State1 and Smith v. State 2 this court held that the making and denial of a motion for new trial by the defendant based upon the insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict was a necessary prerequisite to a consideration of that question on appeal. This court’s decisions were approved and adopted by the Supreme Court in the case of State v. Wright 3 in which it held that the filing of a motion for new trial based on an alleged insufficiency of the evidence is a prerequisite to any questioning of the sufficiency of the evidence upon appeal. The ruling in Wright was adhered to by the Supreme Court in the subsequent decisions rendered by it in the cases of State v. Contreras4 and State v. Owens.5
Because of this court’s inability to consider the only question raised by appellant on this appeal because of his failure to timely file a motion for new trial following rendition of the verdict against him, the judgment appealed is affirmed.
CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and RAWLS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hyler v. State, 253 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)…PER CURIAM. The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the order of the lower court is affirmed. See Elliott v. State, 250 So. 2d 921 (Fla.App.1971). CARROLL, DONALD, Acting C. J., and RAWLS and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Wright, 224 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 1969)
- State v. Owens, 233 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 1970)
- Smith v. State, 194 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)
- In re Petition to Suspend James M. Edwards, 227 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 1969)
- Jones v. State, 212 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)