MICHAEL HUDSON, 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.
Michael Hudson appeals his aggravated battery conviction, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial based on allegedly newly discovered evidence that the victim had previously displayed a firearm in a threatening manner. The court affirmed the conviction, finding the purported new evidence was cumulative and the defendant failed to exercise due diligence in presenting it at trial.
The trial court did not err in denying the motion for new trial. The purported newly discovered evidence was cumulative because Hudson and his brother had already testified at trial about Jackson's reputation for violence and her propensity to carry weapons, and defense counsel failed to exercise due diligence by not cross-examining Jackson about the prior altercation despite having witnesses available to testify about it.
[1] A motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence requires that the evidence be discovered after trial, that due diligence was exercised to present it at trial, t…
[2] Newly discovered evidence that merely impeaches a witness who testified at trial is insufficient to warrant a new trial.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A motion for new trial will not be granted for newly discovered evidence unless such evidence is discovered after trial; due diligence is exercised to present it at trial; it goes to the merits of the case and not merely to impeach a witness who testified; it is not cumulative and it is such as would produce a different verdict.”
Establishes the five-part legal test for newly discovered evidence that must be satisfied before a new trial motion can be granted.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHudson was convicted of aggravated battery following a barroom altercation with Dorothy Jackson. After trial, Jackson admitted that several weeks befo…
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 Newly Discovered Evidence Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant, Michael Hudson, appeals his conviction for aggravated battery arising out of a barroom altercation and contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence.
The evidence consisted of a post-trial admission of the victim, Dorothy Jackson, that several weeks prior to the subject altercation she was involved in another altercation wherein she displayed a firearm in a threatening manner. Defendant argues that this admission gave Jackson a reputation for propensity to carry and use firearms, and this reputation was known to him so as to give him a well founded belief that the use of deadly force by him was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm being inflicted by Jackson.
A motion for new trial will not be granted for newly discovered evidence unless such evidence is discovered after trial; due diligence is exercised to present it at trial; it goes to the merits of the case and not merely to impeach a witness who testified; it is not cumulative and it is such as would produce a different verdict. Harvey v. State, 87 So. 2d 582 (Fla.1956); Weeks v. State, 253 So. 2d 459 (Fla.3d DCA 1971).
Under these controlling principles of law, we find that no reversible error has been made to appear. First, Jackson testified at the trial; nevertheless, defense counsel did not question her with respect to the prior altercation or reputation for violence even though both defendant and his brother, Reuben, testified that she, in fact, had such a reputation. Thus, we find the required exercise of due diligence to be lacking. Second and more important, Jackson’s admission was merely cumulative. Reuben, an eye-witness, testified on behalf of his brother Michael, that he had advised Michael that Jackson carried a pistol. The defendant also testified that Jackson approached him with her hand in her pocketbook and fearing she had a weapon, that’s when he swung at her. Further, there was testimony that the defendant knew Jackson had a bad reputation.
We, therefore, find no abuse of discretion in denying the motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. Cf. Luster v. State, 262 So. 2d 910 (Fla.3d DCA 1972); Dames v. State, 314 So. 2d 171 (Fla.3d DCA 1975) and see State v. Sears, 148 Fla. 89, 3 So. 2d 721 (1941).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Sears, 148 Fla. 89 (Fla. 1941)
- Colburn v. City OF Lakeland, 87 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 1956)
- Harvey v. State, 87 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 1956)
- Ada Louise Dames v. State, 314 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Luster v. State, 262 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Williams v. State, 148 Fla. 87 (Fla. 1941)
- Adams v. State, 253 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Weeks v. State, 253 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)