Haynes v. State

• Court: Florida Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: WHITFIELD, J. PER CURIAM.
• Citation: Haynes v. State, 71 Fla. 585, 72 So. 180 (Fla. 1916)
• Decision Date: 28 April 1916
• Parties: HAYNES v. STATE.

72 So. 180

71 Fla. 585

HAYNES v. STATE.

Florida Supreme Court

April 28, 1916

On Petition for Rehearing, June 27, 1916.

Error to Circuit Court, Hillsborough County; F. M. Robles, Judge.

Charles H. Haynes was convicted of murder in the first degree, and brings error. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

In giving effect to the rights secured by the organic law for the protection of human life and liberty, courts should consider the substance of things, and should not be controlled by mere matters of form or of technical procedure.

Under the controlling organic provisions a person accused of crime is not entitled to have members of his race selected as jurors for his trial.

A person on trial for a criminal offense has a right to a judicial determination by timely and appropriate procedure whether members of his race legally qualified to serve as jurors have been unlawfully discriminated against by officers in selecting the jury for his trial so as to deny him the equal protection of the laws, or so as to deny him the right to be 'equal before the law' in maintaining his 'inalienable rights * * * of enjoying and defending life and liberty.'

Where the statute of a state in its terms does not abridge a privilege or immunity of citizens of the United States, or does not deny to any person the equal protection of the laws the action of officials in executing the provisions of such statute is presumed to be legal.

When illegal action by an official in the administration or execution of a valid statute is charged, such illegal action should be duly, properly, directly, and distinctly alleged and if not admitted by demurrer or otherwise, should be duly proven or proof thereof duly offered according to the usual and proper mode of procedure in such cases.

Where the evidence does not sustain an allegation that in selecting a jury the officers 'discriminated against negroes of African descent because of their race, color, or previous condition of servitude,' a challenge of the array or a motion to quash the venire on such ground is properly overruled.

In the absence of legislative provisions describing the mode in which jury views are to be conducted, it is more in consonance with the theory and methods of judicial trials that the jury should base their findings solely upon sworn testimony in open court, or by depositions taken as provided by law.

The extent to which the circuit court may go in ordering a view by a jury in a criminal case is to direct a view of the premises, where a crime is supposed to have been committed by the jury. The defendants and counsel for the respective parties may be permitted to accompany them, and some person selected by the parties, or named by the court, may accompany the jury to point the premises out to them.

Where in a trial for murder, it clearly appears from the record that on the application of the counsel for the defendant, the defendant being present, the court directed a view by the jury of the place where the homicide was committed, that counsel for the defendant was present with the judge during the view, that no testimony was taken, that no objection was made to the proceedings, that nothing that could have been harmful to the accused transpired during the view, that the view affected no conflicts in the evidence, and that the evidence, without reference to the view, fully sustained the verdict, and no objection is made to the view proceedings until after verdict, the judgment of conviction will not be reversed merely because the defendant was not present at the view, but was not denied the privilege of being present.

Evidence of threats will not be excluded on the ground that it 'is immaterial and irrelevant and is not shown to be a part of the res gestae,' when it tends to show the intent of the accused with reference tos the offense charged.

Under the statute relating to arrests without warrant, it is not error to charge that it is the duty of any sheriff, city marshal, or other police officer to arrest without warrant and take into custody any person whom such officer has reasonable ground to believe and does believe has committed any felony or about to commit a felony or engage in a fight or other breach of the peace, and carrying concealed weapons is a breach of the peace, there being appropriate evidence upon which the charge could be predicated.

Motions relating to matters in pais are not self-supporting.

COUNSEL H. P. Bailey and D. W. Perkins, both of Tampa, for plaintiff in error.

T. F. West, Atty. Gen., and Glenn Terrell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

OPINION

WHITFIELD J.

This writ of error was taken to a conviction of murder in the first degree and a sentence to capital punishment.

After being arraigned and pleading not guilty, the accused, 'a negro of African descent,' presented motions 'challenging the array of jurors herein both as to the nine jurors drawn from the box * * * and also the special venire issued by the court for nine good and lawful men to be summoned from the body of the county,' on the ground that the county commissioners are all white men and for 15 or 20 years they have not selected from among the citizens of the county 'who are eligible for jury duty, any men of African descent, and that such neglect and refusal * * * is because of their race, color, and previous condition of servitude,' notwithstanding there are and were 1,000 or more negroes of African descent and citizens of the county and of the United States 'living in said county of fair character, sound judgment, and intelligence, and capable of jury duty.' There was also presented a motion 'to quash the special venire issued' to the sheriff for the summoning of persons to serve as jurors in the cause. The ground of the latter motion is that the sheriff 'discriminated against negroes of African descent because of their race, color, and previous condition of servitude, although there are now and have been for a great many years, 1,000 or more negroes of African descent living in Hillsborough county, state of Florida, and who are citizens of said county, state of Florida, and United States of America, and who are men of fair character, sound judgment and intelligence, and capable of performing jury duty; that it has been the custom for a great many years past in this court when venires are issued and served for the sheriff of said county to fail and refuse to select any names of persons of African descent to serve on the jury in this court, because of their race, color, and previous condition of servitude, and that in such neglect and refusal on the part of the sheriff whose duty it is to select persons in executing special venires to discriminate against negroes who are of African descent, is a denial to this movant of the equal protection of the laws.' Both of the motions were sworn to by the accused. The court denied the motions, but no exception to such rulings was taken. These rulings are included among the grounds of a motion in arrest of judgment, but as the motions to quash the panels of jurors are not a part of and do not appear on the face of the record proper, they are not proper grounds for a motion in arrest of judgment. The rulings denying the motions to quash the venires are a part of the motion for new trial, and are also specifically assigned as error. As the motions to quash the venires and the rulings thereon are matters not of record, but in pais, and as no exception was taken to the rulings when made, the accused is not entitled to have them reviewed on writ of error. But as the conviction is of a capital offense, the motions, the evidence in support of them, and the rulings thereon have been carefully considered.

In support of the motions a witness testified that he is a negro of African descent; that he is a property owner; that he does not know who is eligible to jury duty in this state 'under the meanings of the law, except those fully qualified by being registered voters and paying taxes'; that he does not know how many negro males are in the county; that the negroes own churches of large value and a small school in the county; that 'a good many' of the negro men are 'of fair character, sound judgment, and intelligence'; that he had never been summoned to do jury duty in the county; that he had never known or heard of any one of African descent 'having been served to do jury duty in the county'; that he had lived in the county 8 years; that he does not know the names of any persons who 'had been summoned to jury duty in the county the last 8 years.' Another witness testified that he is the clerk of the circuit court; that he had lived in the county 49 years; that he had been clerk of the county commissioners nearly 3 years; that during that time he thinks no negroes were selected and certified in the list of jurors; that he does not know any negroes in the county above the age of 21 who are 'of fair character, sound judgment, and intelligence'--the old-time negroes whom he knew are all dead; 'I can't recall any just now, and these new people in here, I don't know anything about them'; that quite a few of them own property; that he had known of negroes serving on juries in the county, about 25 years ago, 'I don't know just when the last negro was on a jury here to my knowledge'; that he thinks none has served within the last 10 or 15 years; that the population of the county is about 60,000; that 700 names are drawn on the jury list.

The Constitution of Florida ordains that:

'All men are equal before the law, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty.' Section 1 Declaration of Rights.

The federal Constitution provides that:

'No state shall * * * deny to...