STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
CLAUDE ROBERT BOWLE, 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 reversed a trial court's grant of a new trial in a grand larceny case, holding that the trial judge abused discretion by substituting his judgment for the jury's on sufficiency of evidence and intent.
A trial judge abuses discretion by granting a new trial based on the judge's own view of the evidence and credibility determinations that are properly jury questions.
[1] A trial judge abuses discretion by granting a new trial based on the judge's independent assessment of evidence sufficiency and intent when the jury verdict is supported…
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 was charged with two counts of grand larceny and convicted by jury. The trial court granted a new trial motion based primarily on the court'…
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 Abuse Of Discretion Standard For New Trial Motions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the State from an order granting defendant a new trial.
Defendant was charged by information with two counts of grand larceny and found guilty by a jury. Defendant’s motion for new trial was granted. The record reflects that the order was predicated primarily upon the trial court’s own view of the evidence, in particular, lack of proof of intent; and the trial court’s feelings about the nature of the criminal charges and the sufficiency of the evidence in support thereof. While an appellate court is reluctant to disturb an order granting a hew trial, where the record clearly reflects an abuse of discretion the appellate court is left with no alternative. State v. Coles, Fla.1956, 91 So. 2d 200. The record contains sufficient evidence to support a jury verdict; in particular, the determination of the sufficiency of the evidence was a jury question and the question of intent was for the jury. Casso v. State, Fla.App.1966, 182 So. 2d 252, 256; cf. Willard v. Bowen, Fla.App.1974, 294 So. 2d 696; Altman Cooling Corp. v. Florida Heat & Power, Inc., Fla.App.1974, 305 So. 2d 225. A trial judge is not permitted to sit as a seventh juror with veto power pitting his judgment against that of the jury. Laskey v. Smith, Fla.1970, 239 So. 2d 13.
The order granting defendant’s motion for new trial constitutes an abuse of discretion and is reversed with directions to reinstate the jury verdict.
Reversed.
OWEN and MAGER, JJ., concur. WALDEN, C. J., dissents, without opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Laskey v. Smith, 239 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1970)
- Casso v. State, 182 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- State v. Ola Coles, 91 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 1956)
- Willard v. Bowen, 294 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Altman Cooling Corp. v. Fla. Heat & Power, Inc., 305 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)