State v. Strickland

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Strickland

172 So. 2d 260

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 26, 1965

DocketNo. 4563

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 172 So. 2d 260 (State v. Strickland) 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. Strickland, 172 So. 2d 260 (Fla. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The state appeals an order granting the defendant a new trial. Such motion is directed to the sound discretion of the trial judge whose ruling thereon will not be disturbed in the absence of a clear showing of abuse. Gelfo v. General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp., Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 31; Huffman v. Heagy, Fla.App.1964, 159 So.2d 907; Morin v. Halpern, Fla.App.1962, 139 So.2d 495. In the present case the heavy burden resting on the appellant has not been sustained.

The trial judge, having observed the witnesses, the jury and respective counsel, was best positioned to rule on the motion — and it is axiomatic that a stronger showing is required to upset an order granting a new trial than an order denying a new trial. Simpson v. Clay, Fla.App.1962, 139 So.2d 494; Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 669.

Affirmed.

WHITE, Acting C. J., ANDREWS, J., and RAWLS, JOHN S., Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The state appeals an order granting the defendant a new trial. Such motion is directed to the sound discretion of the trial judge whose ruling thereon will not be disturbed in the absence of a clear showing of abuse. Gelfo v. General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp., Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 31; Huffman v. Heagy, Fla.App.1964, 159 So.2d 907; Morin v. Halpern, Fla.App.1962, 139 So.2d 495. In the present case the heavy burden resting on the appellant has not been sustained.

The trial judge, having observed the witnesses, the jury and respective counsel, was best positioned to rule on the motion — and it is axiomatic that a stronger showing is required to upset an order granting a new trial than an order denying a new trial. Simpson v. Clay, Fla.App.1962, 139 So.2d 494; Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 669.

Affirmed.

WHITE, Acting C. J., ANDREWS, J., and RAWLS, JOHN S., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 So. 2d 260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-strickland-fladistctapp-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack