State v. Haliburton

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Haliburton

385 So. 2d 11

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 2, 1980

Docket79-2553

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 385 So. 2d 11 (State v. Haliburton) 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. Haliburton, 385 So. 2d 11 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

385 So.2d 11 (1980)

STATE of Florida, Appellant,
v.
Harris HALIBURTON, Appellee.

No. 79-2553.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 2, 1980.

David H. Bludworth, State's Atty., and Sandra M. Kabboush, Asst. State's Atty., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Tatjana Ostapoff, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

BERANEK, Judge.

This is an appeal by the State from the trial court's order granting a new *12 trial to the defendant/appellee. The defendant and another individual were tried and convicted of the crime of burglary. Both defendants moved for new trial and the trial court granted only defendant's motion, finding, "the evidence ... is inconclusive, fragmentary and insubstantial as to the issue of identification of the defendant from any view so as to sustain a jury verdict." We hold that the trial court abused its discretions in ordering a new trial and reverse with directions to reinstate the jury verdict.

The standard for review after the grant of a new trial is whether the trial judge has abused the broad discretion which is his prerogative in considering such a motion. See Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So.2d 669 (Fla. 1959), and State v. Riggins, 314 So.2d 238 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), cert. denied 333 So.2d 464 (Fla. 1976). Here, the evidence was not lacking in any sort of intrinsic credibility. There was no impeachment of the State witnesses on the issue of defendant's identity. Defendant did not take the stand. Counsel on appeal agrees completely with the State's version of the facts relating to identification. This is not a situation where the evidence was inconsistent or in any way unworthy of belief. The only question presented was the sufficiency of the evidence, and we conclude that the State's case on identity was more than adequate. State v. Coles, 91 So.2d 200 (Fla. 1956).

The order granting new trial is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to reinstate the jury verdict and for further proceedings thereafter.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

DOWNEY and HERSEY, JJ., concur.

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

385 So.2d 11 (1980)

STATE of Florida, Appellant,
v.
Harris HALIBURTON, Appellee.

No. 79-2553.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 2, 1980.

David H. Bludworth, State's Atty., and Sandra M. Kabboush, Asst. State's Atty., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Tatjana Ostapoff, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

BERANEK, Judge.

This is an appeal by the State from the trial court's order granting a new *12 trial to the defendant/appellee. The defendant and another individual were tried and convicted of the crime of burglary. Both defendants moved for new trial and the trial court granted only defendant's motion, finding, "the evidence ... is inconclusive, fragmentary and insubstantial as to the issue of identification of the defendant from any view so as to sustain a jury verdict." We hold that the trial court abused its discretions in ordering a new trial and reverse with directions to reinstate the jury verdict.

The standard for review after the grant of a new trial is whether the trial judge has abused the broad discretion which is his prerogative in considering such a motion. See Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So.2d 669 (Fla. 1959), and State v. Riggins, 314 So.2d 238 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), cert. denied 333 So.2d 464 (Fla. 1976). Here, the evidence was not lacking in any sort of intrinsic credibility. There was no impeachment of the State witnesses on the issue of defendant's identity. Defendant did not take the stand. Counsel on appeal agrees completely with the State's version of the facts relating to identification. This is not a situation where the evidence was inconsistent or in any way unworthy of belief. The only question presented was the sufficiency of the evidence, and we conclude that the State's case on identity was more than adequate. State v. Coles, 91 So.2d 200 (Fla. 1956).

The order granting new trial is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to reinstate the jury verdict and for further proceedings thereafter.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

DOWNEY and HERSEY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

385 So. 2d 11, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-haliburton-fladistctapp-1980.

Opinion

STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Harris HALIBURTON, Appellee.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

STATE of Florida, Appellant,
v.
Harris HALIBURTON, Appellee.