State v. Soukup

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Soukup

646 So. 2d 297, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 12289, 1994 WL 700099

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 16, 1994

DocketNo. 94-320

StatusPublished

This text of 646 So. 2d 297 (State v. Soukup) 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. Soukup, 646 So. 2d 297, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 12289, 1994 WL 700099 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

THOMPSON, Judge.

The state appeals the trial court’s order granting Louis Soukup’s motion for new trial. We affirm the entry of the order because the state has not borne its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that there is no possibility that the cumulative effect of the errors below contributed to appellee’s conviction. Jackson v. State, 575 So.2d 181, 189 (Fla.1991) (citing State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986)); Seaboard Air Line R.R. Co. v. Ford, 92 So.2d 160, 165 (Fla.1956). We hold the trial judge did not abuse his discretion by granting a new trial. State v. Hamilton, 574 So.2d 124, 126 (Fla.1991); Baptist Memorial Hosp., Inc. v. Bell, 384 So.2d 145 (Fla.1980); Castlewood Int’l Corp. v. LaFleur, 322 So.2d 520, 522 (Fla.1975).

AFFIRMED.

HARRIS, C.J., concurs. DAUKSCH, J., concurring in conclusion only without opinion.

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

THOMPSON, Judge.

The state appeals the trial court’s order granting Louis Soukup’s motion for new trial. We affirm the entry of the order because the state has not borne its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that there is no possibility that the cumulative effect of the errors below contributed to appellee’s conviction. Jackson v. State, 575 So.2d 181, 189 (Fla.1991) (citing State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986)); Seaboard Air Line R.R. Co. v. Ford, 92 So.2d 160, 165 (Fla.1956). We hold the trial judge did not abuse his discretion by granting a new trial. State v. Hamilton, 574 So.2d 124, 126 (Fla.1991); Baptist Memorial Hosp., Inc. v. Bell, 384 So.2d 145 (Fla.1980); Castlewood Int’l Corp. v. LaFleur, 322 So.2d 520, 522 (Fla.1975).

AFFIRMED.

HARRIS, C.J., concurs. DAUKSCH, J., concurring in conclusion only without opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

646 So. 2d 297, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 12289, 1994 WL 700099, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-soukup-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack