ROY DEES, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the State to reopen its case to establish venue after the close of the State's case.
The defendant was convicted of uttering a forged instrument. After the State closed its case, the defendant moved for acquittal based on lack of venue…
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 Reopening A Case cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant/defendant seeks review of his conviction for uttering a forged instrument, viz: a check, in violation of § 831.02, Florida Statutes (1975). Prior to closing, the State adduced evidence that the check was drawn on Columbia County Bank, Lake City, Florida, and was deposited in the State Exchange Bank of Lake City, Florida. After the State closed, the defendant moved for acquittal on the ground that venue had not been established. The motion was denied and the court allowed the State to reopen its case to present further evidence on venue. Defendant now urges that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the State to reopen its case to establish venue where his motion for judgment of acquittal was made after the close of the State’s case and was based on the ground that venue had not been proved.
It is well established that the decision of the trial judge allowing a party to reopen its case will not be reversed unless a clear abuse of discretion is shown. See e. g., Pitts v. State, 185 So. 2d 164 (Fla.1966); Kimmons v. State, 178 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 1 DCA 1965); King v. State, 272 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 3 DCA 1973).
Under the facts of this case, we hold that an abuse of discretion has not been demonstrated. Accordingly, the judgment and sentence are AFFIRMED.
McCORD, C. J., and BOYER and SMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lyles v. State, 742 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…ontrast, we note that the First District held in Fitzhugh v. State, 698 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), that allowing the State to reopen its case is not an abuse of discretion if the trial judge has not announced his ruling. See also Dees v. State, 357 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). We need not determine whether the language in Burton is dicta, nor need we resolve any potential conflict between Burton and Dees. The trial court committed fundamental error by sua sponte ordering Lyles’ fingerprints for the p…
-
Silber v. Cn'R Indus. OF Jacksonville, Inc., 526 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…directed a verdict for one party; and such ruling by the trial court, absent a showing of abuse of discretion, will not be overturned on appellate review. See, E.g., Eli Witt Cigar & Tobacco Co. v. Matatics, 55 So. 2d 549 (Fla.1951); Dees v. State, 357 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Thrifty Super Market, Inc. v. Kitchener, 227 So. 2d 500 (Fla.3d DCA 1969); 55 Fla.Jur.2d, Trial §§ 47-48 (1984). Indeed, it may even amount to an abuse of discretion not to permit a party to reopen its case in some circumstances…
-
Fitzhugh v. State, 698 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…the state to reopen its case to prove an alleged violation the state had elected not to pursue. The decision of a trial judge to allow a party to reopen its case will not be reversed unless a clear abuse of discretion has been shown. Dees v. State, 357 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Herein, the side-bar conference that took place immediately before the court announced that the state’s ease would be reopened was not recorded and, as such, it is impossible to ascertain whether the court actually directed the…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Randoil Pitts, Jr. v. State, 185 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 1966)
- Kimmons v. State, 178 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)
- King v. State, 272 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Gamsby v. State, 272 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)