State v. Batterton

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Batterton

784 So. 2d 1259, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 7394, 2001 WL 557628

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 25, 2001

DocketNo. 5D99-3131

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 784 So. 2d 1259 (State v. Batterton) 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

State v. Batterton, 784 So. 2d 1259, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 7394, 2001 WL 557628 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The State timely appeals the trial court’s order granting Jesse Batterton’s motion for new trial. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(c)(1)(C).

The standard of review of a trial court’s decision on a motion for new trial is well settled:

A motion for a new trial is addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the trial court, and the presumption is that [it] exercised that discretion properly. And the general rule is that unless it clearly appears that the trial court abused its discretion, the action of the trial court will not be disturbed by the appellate court.

State v. Spaziano, 692 So.2d 174, 177 (Fla.1997)(quoting Henderson v. State, 135 Fla. 548, 561, 185 So. 625, 630 (1938))(Brown, J., concurring specially, [1260]*1260with Terrell, C.J., and Whitfield and Chapman, JJ., concurring). Because we believe that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we will not disturb the trial court’s action. See Fulton v. State, 335 So.2d 280, 283-84 (Fla.1976)(“[I]t is clear that if a witness for the State were presently or recently under actual or threatened criminal charges or investigation leading to such criminal charges, a person against whom such witness testifies in a criminal case has an absolute right to bring those circumstances out on cross-examination”).

AFFIRMED.

THOMPSON, C.J, COBB and PLEUS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The State timely appeals the trial court’s order granting Jesse Batterton’s motion for new trial. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(c)(1)(C).

The standard of review of a trial court’s decision on a motion for new trial is well settled:

A motion for a new trial is addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the trial court, and the presumption is that [it] exercised that discretion properly. And the general rule is that unless it clearly appears that the trial court abused its discretion, the action of the trial court will not be disturbed by the appellate court.

State v. Spaziano, 692 So.2d 174, 177 (Fla.1997)(quoting Henderson v. State, 135 Fla. 548, 561, 185 So. 625, 630 (1938))(Brown, J., concurring specially, [1260]*1260with Terrell, C.J., and Whitfield and Chapman, JJ., concurring). Because we believe that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we will not disturb the trial court’s action. See Fulton v. State, 335 So.2d 280, 283-84 (Fla.1976)(“[I]t is clear that if a witness for the State were presently or recently under actual or threatened criminal charges or investigation leading to such criminal charges, a person against whom such witness testifies in a criminal case has an absolute right to bring those circumstances out on cross-examination”).

AFFIRMED.

THOMPSON, C.J, COBB and PLEUS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

784 So. 2d 1259, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 7394, 2001 WL 557628, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-batterton-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack