STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ELIZABETH HEARD HILL, 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 appealed the trial court's order granting the defendant a new trial in a first-degree murder case after a jury convicted her but recommended mercy. The Florida Supreme Court held that the State failed to demonstrate that the trial judge abused its discretion in granting the new trial motion.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the new trial. The State, bearing the burden of showing an abuse of discretion or reversible error, failed to demonstrate any such error in the trial judge's decision.
“it appearing to the Court that a new trial should be granted because the verdict is contrary to law and to the evidence and that the verdict is not supported by the evidence”
The trial judge's stated reason for granting the motion for new trial, finding the jury verdict unsupported by the evidence and contrary to law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceElizabeth Heard Hill was indicted for first-degree murder of her husband, John Henry Hill, in Broward County. After trial on pleas of not guilty and n…
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 New Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
MATHEWS, Justice.
The appellee was indicted for murder in the first degree of her husband, John Henry Hill, by a Grand Jury in Broward County. She was tried on pleas of “not guilty” and “not guilty by reason of insanity”. The Jury returned its verdict of guilty of first degree murder with a recommendation of mercy.
In due course, the appellee filed a motion for new trial and the same having been argued and submitted to him, the trial Judge made and entered an order granting a new trial and in such order stated:
“ * * * it appearing to the Court that a new trial should be granted because the verdict is contrary to law and to the evidence and that the verdict is not supported by the evidence, $ >¡C * »
Pursuant to F.S. Section 924.13, F.S.A., the State filed notice of appeal, assignments of error and directions to the Clerk for making up the transcript of the record.
Each assignment of error is directed to the order of the trial court in granting a new trial.
No good purpose would be served by summarizing the evidence in this case. It is sufficient to say that the burden is upon the State to show an abuse of discretion or a reversible error committed by the trial Judge in granting a motion for a new trial. The record and briefs in this case have been carefully examined, and from such examination it appears that the State has failed to show any reversible error. Affirmed, with directions to the trial Court to proceed to carry out its order granting a new trial.
ROBERTS, C. J., and TERRELL and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Efren Yero, 377 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…2d 406 (Fla.1978); Christopher v. State, 369 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); State v. Thurston, 372 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). As to the third point, an appellant has the burden of demonstrating error in a trial court’s ruling. See: State v. Hill, 76 So. 2d 155 (Fla.1954); Ramos v. Amidon, 263 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972); State v. Nesbitt, 355 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Stuart v. State, 360 So. 2d 406 (Fla.1978). On this record, the appellant has failed to meet this burden and, therefore, the trial j…