Urga v. State

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida
Citation160 Fla. 740,36 So.2d 421
Decision Date30 July 1948
PartiesURGA v. STATE.

36 So.2d 421

160 Fla. 740

URGA
v.
STATE.

Florida Supreme Court

July 30, 1948


[36 So.2d 422]

Appeal from Criminal Court of Record, Hillsborough County; John R. Himes, Judge.

Whitaker Brothers, of Tampa, and J. Lewis Hall, of Tallahassee, for appellant.

J. Tom Watson, Atty. Gen., Ernest W. Welch, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Lucille Snowden, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

THOMAS, Chief Justice.

The appellant was tried in the Criminal Court of Record of Hillsborough County and convicted and wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously using certain instruments on a female with intent to procure a miscarriage. Upon appeal, the matter was reviewed here and the judgment was affirmed. Urga v. State, 155 Fla. 86, 20 So.2d 685.

Later the appellant filed a motion in this court seeking an order authorizing the trial court to entertain and decide her application for a writ of error coram nobis. The motion was granted; whereupon the petition was presented to the Criminal Court of Record of Hillsborough County. Eventually a jury was impaneled to try the issues formed by the allegations in the petition and the pleas filed by the county solicitor on behalf of the state. The trial culminated in a verdict 'for the Petitioner, Diamante Urga, and against the State of Florida.'

[160 Fla. 741] Subsequently the county solicitor filed a motion for new trial on the three grounds that the verdict was contrary to the law, the evidence, and the weight of the evidence, which, after argument of counsel for the appellant and the county solicitor, was decided, to quote the order, 'in words and figures following: Motion heard, considered and granted.'

We are presently considering an appeal from that motion, which we have held, by denying a motion to dismiss in this court, was an appealable order.

A careful examination of the record in this case has satisfied us that there was abundant testimony, if believed by the jury, to substantiate the position taken by the appellant. It is true that this court is always reluctant to disturb an order of a trial court granting a new trial, inasmuch as such a motion is 'addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the trial court, and the presumption is that he exercised that discretion properly.' Henderson v. State, 135 Fla. 548, 185 So. 625, 630, 120 A.L.R. 742. However, if substantial evidence appears to support the verdict, it should stand, as 'the trial court is without authority at law to substitute his conclusions based on the evidence for the views and conclusions of the jury impanelled and sworn to try the controverted issues of fact.' Hart v. Held, 149 Fla. 33, 5 So.2d 878, 882. The author of the opinion in that case further observed that a trial court might set aside the verdict and grant a new trial if the jury had been deceived 'as to the force and credibility of the evidence, or * * * influenced by considerations outside the record, but when no issue is involved but the sufficiency and the probative force of the evidence, the verdict should not be interfered with. It is error to grant a new trial when the verdict set aside is supported by the testimony appearing in the record and nothing...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • Gonzalez v. State, No. 82-1837
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • April 10, 1984
    ...evidence which supports the jury verdict a new trial should not be granted even though evidence is conflicting); Urga v. State, 160 Fla. 740, 36 So.2d 421 (1948) (same); State v. Riggins, 314 So.2d 238 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), cert. denied, 333 So.2d 464 (Fla.1976) (same). On review of the reco......
  • Hutzel v. Franklin, 5:21-cv-40-RH/MJF
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Northern District of Florida
    • July 19, 2021
    ...this statute indicates, the Florida Legislature has abolished the cause of action for the tort of alienation of affections.[3] Rotwein, 36 So.2d at 421 (noting that the Florida Legislature abolished the cause of action for alienation of affections); Kolkey v. Grossinger, 195 F.2d 525, 525 (......
  • University of Miami v. Echarte, No. 78210
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • May 13, 1993
    ...causes of actions had "become an instrument of extortion and blackmail" and therefore the Legislature could abolish them. Id. at 739, 36 So.2d at 421. This Court in Kluger interpreted the language from Rotwein as the legislative showing that a "public necessity" existed for the abolishment ......
  • Carter v. Duval Engineering & Contracting Co., No. C-143
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • January 19, 1961
    ...Fla.1959, 40 So.2d 360; Hart v. Held, 149 Fla. 33, 5 So.2d 878; Albert v. Miami Transit Co., 154 Fla. 186, 17 So.2d 89; Urga v. State, 160 Fla. 740, 36 So.2d 421; Seaver v. Stratton, 133 Fla. 183, 183 So. We are not unmindful of the broad discretion vested in trial courts to grant new trial......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • Gonzalez v. State, No. 82-1837
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • April 10, 1984
    ...evidence which supports the jury verdict a new trial should not be granted even though evidence is conflicting); Urga v. State, 160 Fla. 740, 36 So.2d 421 (1948) (same); State v. Riggins, 314 So.2d 238 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), cert. denied, 333 So.2d 464 (Fla.1976) (same). On review of the reco......
  • Hutzel v. Franklin, 5:21-cv-40-RH/MJF
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Northern District of Florida
    • July 19, 2021
    ...this statute indicates, the Florida Legislature has abolished the cause of action for the tort of alienation of affections.[3] Rotwein, 36 So.2d at 421 (noting that the Florida Legislature abolished the cause of action for alienation of affections); Kolkey v. Grossinger, 195 F.2d 525, 525 (......
  • University of Miami v. Echarte, No. 78210
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • May 13, 1993
    ...causes of actions had "become an instrument of extortion and blackmail" and therefore the Legislature could abolish them. Id. at 739, 36 So.2d at 421. This Court in Kluger interpreted the language from Rotwein as the legislative showing that a "public necessity" existed for the abolishment ......
  • Carter v. Duval Engineering & Contracting Co., No. C-143
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • January 19, 1961
    ...Fla.1959, 40 So.2d 360; Hart v. Held, 149 Fla. 33, 5 So.2d 878; Albert v. Miami Transit Co., 154 Fla. 186, 17 So.2d 89; Urga v. State, 160 Fla. 740, 36 So.2d 421; Seaver v. Stratton, 133 Fla. 183, 183 So. We are not unmindful of the broad discretion vested in trial courts to grant new trial......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT