Porter v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Porter v. State

895 So. 2d 1240, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 2525, 2005 WL 475509

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 2, 2005

DocketNo. 4D04-1667

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 895 So. 2d 1240 (Porter v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Porter v. State, 895 So. 2d 1240, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 2525, 2005 WL 475509 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

SHAHOOD, J.

The primary issue in this case is whether a successor judge can, as in this case, deny a motion for a new trial based upon the verdict being against the weight of the evidence or a determination of the credibility of witnesses. We hold that the successor judge, due to the unavailability of the original judge, should have granted appellant’s motion for a new trial based on Sanford v. State, 687 So.2d 315 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 697 So.2d 512 (Fla.1997), and State v. May, 703 So.2d 1097 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).

Because we are reversing for a new trial, we decline to address the two additional issues raised by appellant.

REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL.

FARMER, C.J., and TAYLOR, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SHAHOOD, J.

The primary issue in this case is whether a successor judge can, as in this case, deny a motion for a new trial based upon the verdict being against the weight of the evidence or a determination of the credibility of witnesses. We hold that the successor judge, due to the unavailability of the original judge, should have granted appellant’s motion for a new trial based on Sanford v. State, 687 So.2d 315 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 697 So.2d 512 (Fla.1997), and State v. May, 703 So.2d 1097 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).

Because we are reversing for a new trial, we decline to address the two additional issues raised by appellant.

REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL.

FARMER, C.J., and TAYLOR, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

895 So. 2d 1240, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 2525, 2005 WL 475509, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/porter-v-state-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack