FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-4857

_____________________________

KYLE FALES,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Clay County.

John H. Skinner, Judge.

January 22, 2019

PER CURIAM.

A jury found Appellant guilty of multiple offenses arising out 

of a physical altercation between Appellant and his girlfriend’s 

son. Appellant filed a motion for new trial arguing that the trial 

court erred in denying his motions for judgment of acquittal and 

that the jury’s verdict was contrary to the law and the weight of 

the evidence. The trial court denied the motion, stating: “It was a 

good clean trial. I didn’t see any error in the trial.”

On appeal, Appellant argues that the trial court did not use 

the correct standard when ruling on his motion for new trial. We 

agree. “No error in the trial” is not the correct standard to use 

when ruling on a motion for new trial because the motion requires 

the trial court to “evaluate whether a jury’s verdict is contrary to 
2

the weight of the evidence and to act, in effect, as an additional 

juror.” Jordan v. State, 244 So. 3d 1178, 1179 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018); 

see also Tibbs v. State, 397 So. 2d 1120, 1123 (Fla. 1981) 

(explaining that, when ruling on a motion for new trial, the trial 

court is required to evaluate the weight of the evidence and 

determine whether “a greater amount of credible evidence 

supports one side of an issue or cause than the other”).

This conclusion is not undercut by our recent decisions in Bell 

v. State, 248 So. 3d 208 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018), and Moreland v. State, 

253 So. 3d 1245 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018), because those cases are 

distinguishable. There was no indication that the trial courts in 

those cases used the wrong standard when ruling on the 

defendants’ motions for new trial because the courts essentially 

denied the motions without explanation. See Bell, 248 So. 3d at 

210 (“Bell raised both sufficiency-of-the-evidence and weight-ofthe-evidence arguments in his new-trial motions. While the judges’ 

oral rulings only addressed the standard for the sufficiency 

arguments, it does not follow that the judges applied the 

sufficiency standard to the weight-of-the-evidence arguments.”); 

Moreland, 253 So. 3d at 1247 (explaining that the trial court’s 

ruling on the motion for new trial included two independent 

clauses that directly corresponded with the motion’s arguments 

and noting that the clause addressing the arguments that the 

verdict was contrary to the law and the weight of the evidence 

“simply denied the . . . motion without any comment”). Here, by 

contrast, the trial court explained why it denied Appellant’s 

motion for new trial and that explanation cannot be squared with 

the standard that is to be applied when ruling on a motion for new 

trial. Accord Baker v. State, 2018 WL 6803700 (Fla. 1st DCA Dec. 

27, 2018) (distinguishing Bell and Moreland because the trial 

court’s “explicit reference to its rulings during trial” indicated that 

the court did not use the correct standard when ruling on the 

defendant’s motion for new trial).

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for reconsideration of the 

motion for new trial under the correct standard.

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.

WETHERELL, BILBREY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.
3

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Joanna Aurica Mauer, 

Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Brooke Moody, Attorney General, and Daniel Krumbholz, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.