STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
EVAN PLOTKA, 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.
The State appeals a trial court order granting a new trial in a lewd act upon a child case. The appellate court affirmed the trial judge's discretionary decision to order a new trial due to admission of prejudicial testimony, but disagreed that the State failed to present sufficient evidence for jury consideration had that testimony been excluded.
The trial judge properly exercised discretion in ordering a new trial due to the admission of prejudicial testimony. However, the court disagreed with the trial judge's conclusion that the State failed to adduce sufficient evidence to take the case to the jury had the objected-to testimony been excluded.
“We hold that the trial judge acted within his discretion in ordering a new trial in this case.”
Establishes the appellate court's affirmance of the trial judge's authority to grant a new trial based on prejudicial testimony
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlotka was convicted by jury in November 1990 of committing a lewd act upon a child under Florida statute 800.04. During trial, a State witness provid…
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 Prejudicial Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
W. SHARP, Judge.
The State appeals from the trial court’s order on post-trial motions, which granted a new trial in a criminal case, but if the State failed to take an appeal, then promising to enter a judgment of acquittal. Plotka was convicted after a jury trial in November, 1990, of committing a lewd act upon a child (§ 800.04). We affirm in part.
We hold that the trial judge acted within his discretion in ordering a new trial in this case. He determined that certain prejudicial testimony by a State witness should not have been admitted.1 However, we disagree with the trial judge that the State failed to adduce sufficient evidence to take this case to the jury, had the State witness’s objeeted-to testimony been excluded. Accordingly, we affirm the trial judge’s order of a new trial in this case; and remand this cause to the lower court for further proceedings.
AFFIRM in part; REMAND.
COBB and PETERSON, JJ., concur. . See State v. Kopko, 596 So. 2d 669 (Fla.1992) and Pardo v. State, 596 So. 2d 665 (Fla.1992).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Pardo v. State, 596 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1992)
- State v. Kopko, 596 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1992)
- Whipple v. State, 596 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1992)