CARLTON MARTIN
v.
STATE
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 affirmed a conviction for incest, finding sufficient evidence and no abuse of discretion in denying a motion for a new trial based on alleged newly discovered evidence concerning witness credibility.
Yes, there was ample positive evidence to sustain the judgment. No abuse of judicial discretion was shown in denying the motion for a new trial, as the alleged new evidence only went to the credibility of a witness.
“There was ample positive evidence to sustain the judgment.”
Establishes the court's finding regarding the sufficiency of evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was convicted of incest. He moved for a new trial, arguing insufficient evidence and newly discovered evidence that his wife, a key witn…
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 Incest cases and more on FLexlaw
AYrit of error brings for review judgment of conviction of the crime of incest.
Plaintiff in error presents two questions, as follows:
“1. Should the court have granted the defendant’s (below) motion for a new trial on the ground that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain a verdict of guilty?
“2. Should the court have granted the defendant’s (below) motion for a new trial on the ground that the defendant had discovered new evidence which alleged that the defendant’s wife, who was one of the State’s principal ■witnesses, had made threats to the effect that she would get rid of the defendant, and which evidence came to the attention of the defendant after he had been convicted?”
There was ample positive evidence to sustain the judgment. It was for the jury to determine whether the State’s witness or the defendant testified truthfully.
The alleged newly discovered evidence referred to in the motion for a new trial, at most, could only have gone to the credibility of a witness.
No abuse of judicial discretion is made to appear.
The record discloses no reversible error. So the judgment should be affirmed.
So ordered.
*610Affirmed.
Terrell, C. J., and Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, P. J.-, concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Brown and Chapman not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.