Crosby v. State
| Decision Date | 11 October 1957 |
| Citation | 97 So.2d 181 |
| Parties | Charles Edward CROSBY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
C. J. Hardee, Sr., and Robert J. Fishkind, Tampa, for appellant.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and George R. Georgieff, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
On March 2, 1955, the County Solicitor of Hillsborough County, Florida, filed a criminal information charging appellant Crosby and one Lee R. Baker with attempted robbery. Crosby entered a plea of guilty as charged in the information and was adjudged guilty by the Honorable L. A. Grayson, the Judge of the Criminal Court of Record. Sentence was deferred pending an investigation by the court's probation officer. Baker pleaded not guilty, a severance was granted and he was later placed on trial. Crosby, who as yet had not been sentenced was subpoenaed as a witness for both the State and the defense at Baker's trial. He was not called as a witness by the State but did testify as a witness for the defense at the trial on September 15, 1955, at which Judge Grayson presided. The following proceedings transpired while Crosby was on the witness stand:
'(Questions by Assistant County Solicitor McLean:)
'Q. Isn't it a fact that you, together with other juveniles, were arrested out here in this Six Mile Creek Area and thereabouts, in recent months, in connection with this Root Beer Gang that has been given too much publicity in newspapers? A. Yes, sir, but I wasn't arrested as a member of the Root Beer Gang.
'Q. As a matter of fact, they have taken out warrants for you for fondling a little girl out there? Haven't they?
'Mr. Johnson: I object to all this, your Honor. He is coming in with statements of arrest and I believe your Honor is allowing him to go beyond the reasonable bounds of questioning here, when you are supposed to ask questions pertaining to this particular case.
'The Court: Let the Jury be withdrawn.
'(The Jury was withdrawn.)
'The Court: In view of this witness's testimony I don't see why this case should go along any further. If the jury were to convict this defendant, I don't think I could let it stand. I don't see any use in prolonging the agony here any more.
'Now, this witness may be lying and I don't know whether he is or not, but, certainly, his testimony is more than adequate, in my judgment, to cast a reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused. I'm not going to go along any further with it. I don't see any use to take up any more time in cross-examination. I have heard all I want to know and when he goes off the stand, I am instructing the Sheriff to take him into custody and hold him without bond and bring him up for sentence next Monday.
'Mr. Clerk, in the morning, instruct the Probation Officer to discontinue his investigation. I don't want to put a man like that on probation. I am not going to waste any more time with him.
'Mr. Johnson: But, you are not, your Honor, punishing this man for telling the truth, are you?
'The Court: No, because I don't think he is telling the truth. I am punishing him for telling a lie. The whole bunch of them. I think he is a liar from the word 'go.' Bring back the jury. I'll stop the case. You are not concerned with this fellow.
'(The Jury returned to the court room.)
'The Court: Gentlemen, after the cross-examination of this witness and when the defendant would have rested his case, counsel would have renewed his motion for a directed verdict, which has already been made and denied; but, in the light of this testimony, I don't see how in the world you could find the defendant guilty, or how I could allow it to stand if you did.
'You can take him out, Mr. Sheriff, and put him in the cooler.'
After Baker's trial, Crosby (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) filed affidavit and application for disqualification of Judge Grayson, with supporting affidavits, pursuant to Sec. 38.10, F.S., F.S.A., citing the statements made by the latter concerning the defendant during Baker's trial, referred to above, as a basis for his fear that he would not receive a fair trial at the hands of Judge Grayson and his contention that Judge Grayson was prejudiced against defendant and disqualified to sit as a fair and impartial Judge in any future proceedings in the defendant's case. At the same time, defenda...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brazeail v. State, 1D02-0763.
...advice by defense counsel as to the consequences of a plea. See, e.g., Brown v. State, 92 Fla. 592, 109 So. 627 (1926); Crosby v. State, 97 So.2d 181 (Fla. 1957); Brown v. State, 245 So.2d 41 (Fla. 1971); Costello v. State, 260 So.2d 198 (Fla.1972); Thompson v. State, 351 So.2d 701 (Fla.197......
-
Love v. State, 89-2461
...and place the judiciary in a compromising attitude which is bad for the administration of justice. Id. at 1086. See also Crosby v. State, 97 So.2d 181 (Fla.1957); State ex rel. Davis v. Parks, 141 Fla. 516, 194 So. 613 (1939); Dickenson v. Parks, 104 Fla. 577, 140 So. 459 (1932); State ex r......
-
State v. Yeomans, CASE NO. 1D14-0732
...5advice by defense counsel as to the consequences of a plea. See, e.g., Brown v. State, 92 Fla. 592, 109 So. 627 (1926); Crosby v. State, 97 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 1957); Brown v. State, 245 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 1971); Costello v. State, 260 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 1972); Thompson v. State, 351 So. 2d 701 (F......
-
State v. Yeomans
...advice by defense counsel as to the consequences of a plea. See, e.g., Brown v. State, 92 Fla. 592, 109 So. 627 (1926) ; Crosby v. State, 97 So.2d 181 (Fla.1957) ; Brown v. State, 245 So.2d 41 (Fla.1971) ; Costello v. State, 260 So.2d 198 (Fla.1972) ; Thompson v. State, 351 So.2d 701 (Fla.1......