STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
JIMMIE L. JONES, 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 court held that a trial court exceeds its jurisdiction by ordering a polygraph examination for a defendant without the State's consent when considering a motion for a new trial based on the weight of the evidence.
Following a jury verdict of guilty for grand larceny, the defendant filed a motion for a new trial. The trial court reserved ruling on the motion, pen…
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 Polygraph Examination cases and more on FLexlaw
Jimmie Lee Jones was charged, tried by a jury, and found guilty of grand larceny. He filed a motion for a new trial on the grounds that the verdict was contrary to law and the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court entered its order which (1) reserved ruling on the motion until such time as the defendant, Jimmie Lee Jones, had been: given a polygraph examination, and (2) directed the State Attorney to make the necessary arrangements to have a polygraph examination administered to the defendant on or before a certain date. This is the order which the State has sought to have reviewed by petition for writ of certiorari.
When a defendant in a criminal case has been found guilty by a jury, and thereafter files a timely motion for new trial on the grounds that the verdict is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, the motion should be heard and considered by the trial court solely on the basis of the record and the evidence upon which the jury reached its verdict. This would apply as well to the weighing of the credibility of defendant’s testimony in his own behalf.
The jury did not have the benefit of a polygraph examination of defendant. Therefore, the court exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering the State, absent its consent,1 to have a polygraph examination *221administered to the defendant where the obvious purpose is to use the result in determining whether the verdict was contrary to the evidence. Certiorari is granted and the order quashed.
WALDEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Riggins, 314 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)…nally, when hearing a motion for new trial predicated on the verdict’s being contrary to the weight of the evidence the trial court must base its decision solely on the record and the evidence upon which the jury reached its verdict. State v. Jones, 281 So. 2d 220 (4th DCA Fla.App.1973). The trial court here did not so base its order. The emphasized sentence in Paragraph C reveals that the court considered the availability of evidence not offered. The appellate standard of review for a motion granting a new…
-
Roth v. State, 368 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…hout any representation of the State at the examination. We hold that by this procedure, the trial judge exceeded his authority. The result of the polygraph examination does not constitute a basis for the granting of a new trial. See State v. Jones, 281 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973), where the court stated: “The jury did not have the benefit of a polygraph examination of defendant. Therefore, the court exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering the State, absent its consent, to have a polygraph examination admin…
-
State v. Brown, 77 So. 3d 693 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…hearing a motion for new trial predicated on the verdict being contrary to the weight of the evidence the trial court must base its decision solely on the record and the evidence upon which the jury reached its verdict.” Id. (citing State v. Jones, 281 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)). Here, Morris was able to identify the defendant from a photographic array and, in the course of his sworn statement to the police, specified that the defendant was wearing a skully cap at the time the he and the Victim were rob…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Brown, 177 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)