ALAN F. RHODES, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed defendant's convictions for accessory after the fact and possession of burglary tools, rejecting his claim that the trial court erred in denying a new trial motion based on a witness's changed testimony, because defense counsel was aware of the inconsistency before trial.
A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for a new trial when defense counsel was aware of a witness's inconsistent testimony prior to trial.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for a new trial when defense counsel had prior knowledge of a witness's inconsistent testimony before tria…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant Rhodes was convicted by jury of being an accessory after the fact and possession of burglary tools. Ms. Brown, a prosecution witness, testif…
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 Possession Of Burglary Tools cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant-appellant was informed against, tried by jury, found guilty and sentenced to five years in the state penitentiary for (1) being an accessory after the fact, and (2) possession of burglary tools. •
Defendant-appellant first contends that the trial court erred in denying defense’s motion for a new trial based upon the fact that Ms. Brown, a prosecution witness at the trial, had changed her testimony after the date of her deposition.
An examination of the record on appeal illustrates that Ms. Brown’s testimony at trial was identical to (1) her statement she gave to the police after her husband’s arrest, (2) her testimony at the preliminary hearing, and (3) her testimony at a deposition conducted by the state. Ms. Brown admitted that she testified falsely only at a deposition which was attended by defense counsel. Thus, we find that defense counsel was aware of the inconsistent testimony prior to the trial. Therefore, we conclude that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying defense counsel’s motion for a new trial. Cf. Bell v. State, Fla.1956, 90 So. 2d 704. We also considered appellant’s remaining points on appeal and find them to be without merit.
Accordingly, the judgment herein appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rhodes v. State, 314 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 1975)…Certiorari denied. 301 So. 2d 132. ROBERTS, BOYD, OVERTON and ENGLAND, JJ., concur. ADKINS, C. J., dissents.…
Authorities Cited
- Bell v. State, 90 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 1956)