Bell v. State
| Decision Date | 21 November 1956 |
| Citation | 90 So.2d 704 |
| Parties | Ernest N. BELL and James Clayton Clemons, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Lloyd Bass, Jacksonville, for appellants.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., Joseph P. Manners, and Richard J. Brooks, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.
The appellants have appealed from verdicts and judgments convicting them of the offenses of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony and grand larceny. The sole issue presented on this appeal is whether the trial judge erred in denying their motion for new trial, based upon the affidavit of an accomplice, one Wilkins, that he had testified falsely against them at the trial.
The rule for our guidance in this situation was stated in Henderson v. State, 135 Fla. 548, 185 So. 625, 630, 120 A.L.R. 742, citing 16 C.J., 1188, et seq., as follows:
* * *" See, also, 23 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 1454.
Here, the only direct evidence implicating the appellants in the crimes was that of Wilkins, although there was circumstantial evidence against them. However, it was shown at the trial that, immediately after his arrest, Wilkins stated to the arresting officers that the appellants participated in the crime with him; that he recanted this statement at the preliminary hearing and said that the appellants were not involved; and, as shown in his testimony at the trial he reversed to his original statement and implicated the appellants. By the affidavit filed in support of the motion for new trial, he has again recanted a prior statement and now says that he swore falsely at the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State
...it is the duty of the court to deny a new trial where it is not satisfied that such testimony is true.' " (emphasis added) Bell v. State, 90 So.2d 704, 705 (Fla.1956) (quoting Henderson v. State, 135 Fla. 548, 185 So. 625, 630, 120 A.L.R. 742 Next expressed is a concern that this case will ......
-
Mosley v. State
...observed is, "as a general matter, ‘exceedingly unreliable.’ " Spann v. State , 91 So.3d 812, 816 (Fla. 2012) (quoting Bell v. State , 90 So.2d 704, 705 (Fla. 1956) ). Upon a full review of the record, the postconviction court's order, and the parties' arguments, we deny this claim because ......
-
Green v. State
...judge regarding these credibility determinations. See Melendez, 718 So.2d at 747-48; Blanco, 702 So.2d at 1251; see also Bell v. State, 90 So.2d 704, 704 (Fla.1956) ("[R]ecanting testimony is exceedingly unreliable, and it is the duty of the court to deny a new trial where it is not satisfi......
-
Tafero v. State
...336 So.2d 364 (Fla.1976); State v. Gomez, 363 So.2d 624 (Fla.3d DCA 1978), nor recantation by trial witnesses, see, e. g., Bell v. State, 90 So.2d 704 (Fla.1956); Mollica v. State, supra; Weston v. State, 351 So.2d 75 (Fla.1st DCA 1977), requires that a new trial be granted.11 It appears, a......