State v. Consiglio

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Consiglio

730 So. 2d 383, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 4175, 1999 WL 174226

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 31, 1999

DocketNo. 98-1375

StatusPublished

This text of 730 So. 2d 383 (State v. Consiglio) 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. Consiglio, 730 So. 2d 383, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 4175, 1999 WL 174226 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

KLEIN, J.

The state appeals an order granting a new trial which the court granted because of prejudicial statements which occurred during the testimony of an investigating officer. We affirm.

In response to a question as to how he had become involved in the investigation, the officer responded that he had “noticed on the police report that Mr. Consiglio was a suspect in that case and I had known him from previous contact I had with him.” Defendant objected and the objection was sustained. The officer was then asked what he did after contacting the victims in the case, and he responded: “I researched and found that I could obtain a photograph from the Sheriffs office on Mr. Consiglio-,” at which point defendant made an objection which was sustained, and moved for a mistrial which was denied. After a verdict finding defendant guilty the trial court granted defendant’s motion for new trial because of the above testimony.

In State v. Hart, 632 So.2d 134 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), we concluded that orders granting new trials in criminal cases should be reviewed on appeal under the same standards as orders granting new trials in civil cases. In civil cases trial courts are accorded broad discretion, Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So.2d 669 (Fla.1959). If reasonable judges could differ as to the propriety of an order granting a new trial, there is no abuse of discretion. Smith v. Brown, 525 So.2d 868 (Fla.1988).

[384]*384The state argues that the evidence of guilt was overwhelming. That argument might have been persuasive if the trial court had refused to grant a mistrial or new trial, and the defendant was appealing, asking this court to grant a new trial. Here the trial judge granted a new trial, and he was in a much better position than we are to determine whether the police officer’s comments were prejudicial in light of the evidence. We find no abuse of discretion.

POLEN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

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

KLEIN, J.

The state appeals an order granting a new trial which the court granted because of prejudicial statements which occurred during the testimony of an investigating officer. We affirm.

In response to a question as to how he had become involved in the investigation, the officer responded that he had “noticed on the police report that Mr. Consiglio was a suspect in that case and I had known him from previous contact I had with him.” Defendant objected and the objection was sustained. The officer was then asked what he did after contacting the victims in the case, and he responded: “I researched and found that I could obtain a photograph from the Sheriffs office on Mr. Consiglio-,” at which point defendant made an objection which was sustained, and moved for a mistrial which was denied. After a verdict finding defendant guilty the trial court granted defendant’s motion for new trial because of the above testimony.

In State v. Hart, 632 So.2d 134 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), we concluded that orders granting new trials in criminal cases should be reviewed on appeal under the same standards as orders granting new trials in civil cases. In civil cases trial courts are accorded broad discretion, Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So.2d 669 (Fla.1959). If reasonable judges could differ as to the propriety of an order granting a new trial, there is no abuse of discretion. Smith v. Brown, 525 So.2d 868 (Fla.1988).

[384]*384The state argues that the evidence of guilt was overwhelming. That argument might have been persuasive if the trial court had refused to grant a mistrial or new trial, and the defendant was appealing, asking this court to grant a new trial. Here the trial judge granted a new trial, and he was in a much better position than we are to determine whether the police officer’s comments were prejudicial in light of the evidence. We find no abuse of discretion.

POLEN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

730 So. 2d 383, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 4175, 1999 WL 174226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-consiglio-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack