Grissom v. State, 69--1028
| Citation | 237 So.2d 57 |
| Decision Date | 16 June 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 69--1028,69--1028 |
| Parties | Ernest Lee GRISSOM, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Hughlan Long, Public Defender, and Lewis Kimler, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Melvin Grossman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before PEARSON, C.J., and CHARLES CARROLL and SWANN, JJ.
The appellant seeks reversal of a jury trial conviction of second degree murder, of which offense he was adjudged guilty and thereupon sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 20 years. Appellant contends first that the court erred in denying his request for a twelve person jury. Second, that the court erred in rejecting the testimony of a psychiatrist which was offered. Third, that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. On consideration of the record and briefs we find those contentions to be without merit.
Second degree murder, a noncapital offense, is triable under the law of Florida before a six person jury. Section 3 of the Declaration of Rights of the Florida Constitution, F.S.A. provides: 'The right of trial by a jury shall be secured to all, and remain inviolate forever.' By statute (§ 913.10(1), Fla.Stat., F.S.A.), provision is made for capital cases to be tried before a jury of twelve and 'all other criminal cases' to be triable before a jury of six. See Williams v. State, Fla.App. 1969, 224 So.2d 406; Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 194, 88 S.Ct. 1444, 20 L.Ed.2d 491, 522.
The testimony of the psychiatrist which was offered was properly excluded. It would have presented as exculpatory a mental attitude of the defendant not adequate for defense under the McNaughton Rule. In the brief of the appellant it was recognized that exclusion of the evidence by the trial court was not incorrect if the McNaughton Rule is adhered to and applicable. The McNaughton Rule is in effect in Florida. See Campbell v. State, Fla.1969, 227 So.2d 873, 877.
The jury's verdict was amply supported by the evidence, which disclosed the following. The defendant, a student in a junior high school, together with certain other students, was detected by a teacher to be engaged in a rule violation within the school premises. He and the others were directed by the teacher to the office of the principal, who after admonishing them sent them home. On leaving, the appellant was heard to voice a threat to return and kill them 'all.' A short time later ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Manuel v. State
...the requisite depravity of mind. See Luke v. State, 204 So.2d 359 (Fla.4th DCA 1967). Another 'strong' case is that of Grissom v. State, 237 So.2d 57 (Fla.3d DCA 1970). In Grissom, the defendant, a junior high school student, was disciplined by a teacher for a rule violation. Upon being dis......
-
Grissom v. Wainwright, 73-3025.
...charges. The Third Florida District Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction and twenty-year sentence on direct appeal, Grissom v. State, 237 So.2d 57 (Fla.App.2d 1970), and denied his subsequent application for habeas corpus relief. 259 So.2d 738 (Fla.App.2d 1972). The federal district cou......
-
Foster v. State
...the guilt phase of the trial. This evidence would not require the submission of the insanity issue to the jury. See Grisson v. State, 237 So.2d 57 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970); Campbell v. State, 227 So.2d 873 (Fla.1969); Dampier v. State, 180 So.2d 183 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965). The trial judge found appe......
-
Grissom v. State, 71-760
...JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Swindle v. State, Fla.App.1967, 202 So.2d 132; Suarez v. State, Fla.App.1969, 220 So.2d 442; Grissom v. State, Fla.App.1970, 237 So.2d 57; Peterson v. State, Fla.App.1970, 237 So.2d 23; Lopetegui v. State, Fla.App.1972, 257 So.2d 914 (opinion filed January 25, ...