Bonaparte v. State
| Decision Date | 11 March 1913 |
| Citation | 61 So. 633,65 Fla. 287 |
| Parties | BONAPARTE v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Court of Record, Duval County; John S. Maxwell, Judge.
Harry Bonaparte was convicted of embezzlement, and he brings error. Reversed, and new trial ordered.
Syllabus by the Court
Our statutes on the subject of selection of jurors do not discriminate, and do not authorize discrimination, against any person for jury service because of race or color. But if the executive officers of the courts, charged with the duty of executing such statutory provisions, deliberately, in the execution thereof, discriminate against negroes because of their race or color, it would be not only a violation of our statutes, but would violate the provisions of the fourteenth amendment to the federal Constitution, and would render their action null and void in any case in which such discrimination occurred.
In the trial of a challenge to the array of jurors composing a special venire selected and summoned by a deputy sheriff on a venire, directing him to summon them from the body of the county at large, where the cause of challenge is that such deputy sheriff, in selecting such panel, discriminated against persons of African descent because of their race and color, and where such deputy sheriff, as a witness for the state, denies any such discrimination and asserts that he has acted as deputy sheriff in such county for the past eight years, it is error for the court to sustain an objection by the state to the following cross-interrogatory to such deputy sheriff propounded by the counsel for the defendant, who was a negro: 'You have stated that you have been deputy sheriff for eight years, now state whether or not you have selected any colored men as jurors in this court or any of the courts of the county during this time?' The question was proper cross-examination, and, if answered in the negative, would have been strong impeachment of the truth of such deputy sheriff's denial of the alleged discrimination in a county where it had been undisputedly shown that there were more negroes than white people, and that a great many of such negroes were duly qualified in every way for service as jurors. A wide latitude should be allowed in the cross-examination of a witness in the propounding of questions tending to show the interests inclination, bias, or prejudice of the witness.
COUNSEL I. L. Purcell, of Jacksonville, for plaintiff in error.
T. F West, Atty. Gen., and C. O. Andrews, of Tallahassee, for the State.
Harry Bonaparte seeks relief here from a conviction of the crime of embezzlement in the criminal court of record of Duval county.
From the record in the case it appears that the regular panel of jurors in permanent attendance during the week in which the defendant's trial was had was quashed on the challenge of the defendant to the array on the ground of discrimination against the negro race in its selection. A special venire to be summoned from the body of the county at large was then issued to try the defendant's case, and none but white men were summoned or returned by the deputy sheriff in response to this special writ.
The defendant again interposed a challenge to the array of jurors so returned on said special venire on the ground that the sheriff, in selecting said jurors, discriminated against negroes on account of their race, color, and previous condition of servitude, and summoned no negroes thereon because of such discrimination, although there were several thousand negroes in said county who were fully qualified for jury service. That it has been the custom for many years in this court, when special venires are issued and served, for the sheriff to fail and refuse to select any names of persons of African descent to serve on the jury in this honorable court.
To sustain this challenge to the array, the defendant proved by undisputed testimony that, according to the last official census, there were more negroes residing in Duval county than there were white people. That a great many of them owned their own homes, besides other property, and that there were several schools supported by them exclusively, outside of the public schools supported by the county and state. That there are in the county at least 1,000 negroes of sound judgment and discretion and fully qualified for jury service, but that during the past 10 or 15 years no negro has ever served or been summoned on a jury in any of the courts of the county.
The state, to rebut this challenge, put the deputy sheriff, who selected and summoned the panel challenged, on the stand as a witness, who was questioned and answered as follows:
On his cross-examination by the defendant's counsel, after answering that he had been a deputy sheriff of the county for eight years, the following question was propounded to him: 'You have stated that you have been deputy sheriff for eight years, now state whether or not you have selected any colored men as jurors in this court or any of the courts of the county during this time?'
But to the propounding of this question the state's attorney objected on the ground that the subject of the inquiry was whether or not he discriminated in the selection of the present jury. This objection the court sustained and refused to permit the question to be answered. This ruling is assigned as error. This was error. The question itself disclosed on its face the fact that it was sought thereby to elicit from the witness, viz., whether or not, during the eight years' service of the witness as a deputy sheriff of the county, he had ever selected or summoned a negro for hury service in that or any other court of the county. The question tended to test the truth of the witness' answers on the direct examination to the effect that, in selecting this panel of jurors, he had not discriminated against the negro race, which was the proper function of the cross-examination. If in answer to this question the witness had answered that, during the whole of his eight years' service as a deputy sheriff, he had never for this or any other court in the county selected or summoned a negro for jury service, it would have gone far towards impeaching the truthfulness of his answer that, in selecting this jury, he did not discriminate against negroes; since it would be beyond the ken of the judicial or any other mind to appreciate how a deputy sheriff in a county containing more negroes than whites could, through a series of eight years in selecting jurors for all the courts of the county, abstain from selecting a single negro for jury service during all those years, and then come up afterwards and truthfully testify that he had not discriminated against the negro race in the selection of a panel of jurors all of whom still belonged to the white race.
We have held, in effect, that our statutes on the subject of the selection of jurors do not discriminate, and do not authorize discrimination, against any person for jury service because of race or color. But that, if the executive officers, charged with the duty of executing such statutory provisions, deliberately, in the execution thereof, discriminated against negroes because of their race or color, it would be not only a violation of our statutes, but would violate the provisions of the fourteenth amendment to the federal Constitution, and would render their action null and void in any case in which such discrimination occurred. Montgomery v. State, 55 Fla. 97, 45 So. 879.
The question discarded by the trial court was legitimate cross-examination (Stewart v. State, 58 Fla. 97, 50 So. 645; Wallace v. State, 41 Fla. 547, 26 So. 713), and the court below committed reversible error in sustaining the objection of the state thereto, and the judgment below should be and is hereby reversed and a new trial ordered at the cost of Duval county.
In dealing with rights guaranteed by the federal Constitution, as in other matters of consequence, courts should look to the substance of things and not to the mere form in which they appear in judicial proceedings.
The bill of exceptions, in noting an exception to the sustaining of an objection to the question propounded on cross-examination, continues thus: 'The evidence being offered to prove that the witness, a deputy sheriff for eight years, had not during this time, although summoning many jurors, failed and refused to summon any colored men.' This clearly shows the purpose of the question and its relevancy to the issue being tried, viz., whether the officer, in summoning the jury then challenged, 'did fail and refuse to select any colored men of African descent to serve on the jury, * * * thus discriminating against all colored men of African descent,' in violation of law.
As this witness was the deputy who summoned the jury in question, and as the proffered testimony, viewed in the light of the evidence already adduced, at least tended to show, from long-continued conduct of the deputy, an unlawful discrimination by him in summoning the particular jury, the question propounded on cross-examination was not subject to the objection interposed to it, and in sustaining the objection to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Norris v. State
... ... West ... Virginia, 100 U.S. 303, 25 L.Ed. 664; Virginia v ... Rives, 100 U.S. 313, 25 L.Ed. 667; Ex parte Virginia, ... 100 U.S. 339, 25 L.Ed. 676; Gibson v. Mississippi, ... 162 U.S. 565, 16 S.Ct. 904, 40 L.Ed. 1075; Lee v ... State, 163 Md. 56, 161 A. 284; Bonaparte v ... State, 65 Fla. 287, 61 So. 633; Lewis v. State, ... 91 Miss. 505, 45 So. 360 ... The ... jury board in this state is composed of three members, and ... the qualifications for jurors are set out in section 8603, ... Code 1923 (see, also, Gen. Acts 1931, pp. 44 and 55), as ... ...
-
Leavine v. State
...v. State, 46 Fla. 84, 35 So. 185; Johnson v. Reynolds, 97 Fla. 591, 121 So. 793; Stewart v. State, 58 Fla. 97, 50 So. 642; Bonaparte v. State, 65 Fla. 287, 61 So. 633; Wigmore on Evidence (2d Ed.) § 944. For the judge to have said that he thought the evidence was not material probably empha......
-
Lee v. State
...their bias against blacks in general, Smith v. State, supra; Jacek v. Bacote, 135 Conn. 702, 68 A.2d 144 (1949). Cf. Bonaparte v. State, 65 Fla. 287, 61 So. 633 (1913) (question whether in eight years sheriff had ever selected a black juror proper to impeach his denial of discrimination in ......
-
Haynes v. State
...usual and proper mode of procedure in such cases. Montgomery v. State, 55 Fla. 97, 45 So. 879; Bonaparte v. State, 65 Fla. 287, text 293, 61 So. 633. The require that: 'Jurors shall be taken from the male persons above the age of twenty-one years who have resided in this state for one year,......