Davis v. State

• Court: Florida Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: TERRELL, J.
• Citation: Davis v. State, 105 So. 845, 90 Fla. 322 (Fla. 1925)
• Decision Date: 08 October 1925
• Parties: DAVIS et al. v. STATE.

105 So. 845

90 Fla. 322

DAVIS et al. v. STATE.

Florida Supreme Court, Division A.

October 8, 1925

Error to Criminal Court of Record, Duval County; James M. Peeler Judge.

Marvin Davis and John Youngue were convicted of breaking and entering a building with intent to commit a felony and grand larceny, and they bring error.

Affirmed.

See also, 105 So. 843.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Accused is entitled to fair and impartial jury, but not to any particular jury or juror. One charged with crime is entitled to a fair and impartial jury to try his cause, but he is not entitled to any particular jury or juror to do this.

COUNSEL

McNamee, Wilson & Koester, of Jacksonville, for plaintiffs in error.

Rivers Buford, Atty, Gen., and Marvin C. McIntosh, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.

OPINION

TERRELL J.

Marvin Davis and John Youngue were informed against in the criminal court of record of Duval county, January 23, 1925, for breaking and entering a building with intent to commit a felony and grand larceny. They were convicted as charged in the information. Marvin Davis was sentenced to confinement in the state penitentiary at hard labor for a term of nine years, and John Youngue was sentenced to confinement in the state penitentiary at hard labor for a term of five years. Motion for new trial was denied, and writ of error taken to this court.

The first assignment of error challenges the refusal of the trial court to excuse for cause the jurors, J. C. Dupree, E. T. Wooly, C. P. Tanner, and L. M. Wilsey.

The ground of challenge for cause was that these jurors had on the previous day at the same term sat in the trial of and had convicted Marvin Davis, Walter Davis, Clinton H. Peeler, and George Jacobs for breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor and petit larceny.

This court has repeatedly held that one charge with crime is entitled to a fair and impartial jury to try his cause, but that he is not entitled to any particular jury or juror to do this. It is not charged that defendant did not have a fair and impartial jury, and the record discloses that the jury which tried the defendants was different from the one which tried the case of Davis v. State on the previous day. The record does not show that the defendants exhausted their peremptory challenges on any person or persons offered as jurors, or that any right of theirs was prejudiced, nor is error made to appear...