Hearns v. State
| Decision Date | 11 June 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 37840,37840 |
| Parties | Lamar HEARNS, Appellant, Cross-Appellee, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee, Cross-Appellant. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Robert L. Koeppel, Public Defender, and Phillip A. Hubbart, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant-cross-appellee.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Harold Mendelow, Asst. Atty. Gen., Richard E. Gerstein, State Atty., and Charles D. Edelstein, Asst. State Atty., for appellee-cross-appellant.
Appellant Lamar Hearns was convicted of robbery in the Criminal Court of Record of Dade County, Florida, and sentenced to life imprisonment. He appealed to the District Court of Appeal, Third District, and that court transferred the case here because the trial judge held F.S. Section 921.025, F.S.A., unconstitutional.
The Appellant appealed his conviction to the District Court on the ground a fundamental error was committed in that he was found guilty by a six-man jury when he was entitled under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution to be tried by a twelve-man jury.
The State cross-appealed because the trial judge contemporaneously with the entry of a judgment of conviction and sentence on the verdict, held Section 921.025 (Ch. 67--214) unconstitutional.
Section 921.025 provides:
'Judgments on felonies to be in writing, signed by judge and recorded and to contain fingerprints of accused.--
'(1) Every judgment of guilty or not guilty of a felony shall be in writing, signed by the judge and recorded. The judge shall cause to be affixed to every written judgment of guilty of a felony, in open court and in the presence of such judge, the fingerprints of the defendant against whom such judgment is rendered. Such fingerprints shall be affixed beneath the judge's signature to such judgment. Beneath such fingerprints shall be appended a certificate to the following effect:
"I hereby certify that the above and foregoing fingerprints on this judgment are the fingerprints of the defendant, _ _, and that they were placed thereon by said defendant in my presence, in open court, this the _ _ day of _ _, 19_ _.'
'Such certificate shall be signed by the judge, whose signature thereto shall be followed by the word 'Judge.'
'(2) Any such written judgment of guilty of a felony, or a certified copy thereof, shall be admissible in evidence in the several courts of this state as prima facie evidence that the fingerprints appearing thereon and certified by the judge as aforesaid are the fingerprints of the defendant against whom such judgment of guilty of a felony was rendered.'
We accede to the transfer of the case by the District Court and accept jurisdiction of the appeal. See Grove Press, Inc. v. State ex rel. Gerstein (Fla.App.), 152 So.2d 177. Also see F.S. Section 924.07(4), F.S.A.
We disagree with Appellant's contention that he was entitled to be tried before a twelve-man jury. By statute and rule, Florida requires that all capital cases shall be tried by a jury composed of twelve persons, and all noncapital cases shall be tried by a jury composed of six persons. F.S. Section 913.10(1), F.S.A. Rule 1.270, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 33 F.S.A. Appellant's contention has been considered before in our jurisdiction and rejected. See Adams v. State (1908), 56 Fla. 1, 48 So. 219, and Cotton v. State (1923), 85 Fla. 197, 95 So. 668.
We do not consider the requirement of a twelve-man jury by the United States Supreme Court in Thompson v. Utah (1898), 170 U.S. 343, 18 S.Ct. 620, 42 L.Ed. 1061, or its pronouncements in he recent case of Duncan v. Louisiana (1968), 391 U.S. 145, 88 S.Ct. 1444, 20 L.Ed.2d 491, are holdings precluding Florida from prescribing a different number of jurors for certain noncapital criminal cases than was required at common law. The guarantee of an impartial jury trial, but not a guaranteed number of jurors to participate at the trial is provided by the Sixth Amendment.
We agree with the cross-appeal of the Appellee (State) that Section 921.025 is constitutional.
The trial judge in his opinion and order holding the section unconstitutional, states the statute is a legislative interference with his judicial duties, imposing monjudicial functions upon him in violation of Article II of the Florida Constitution (1885) F.S.A. requiring separation of governmental powers. He considers taking the fingerprints of a person convicted pursuant to the statute...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hamrick v. State
...after a jury trial. His claim that he was entitled to a twelve man jury for his trial in this matter is without merit. Hearns v. State, Fla.1969, 223 So.2d 738 and Williams v. State, Fla.App.1969, 224 So.2d 406. Appellant argues that the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of a wit......
-
Johnson v. State, 46672
...an expungement of arrests which do not result in conviction. The effect on the judicial system is minimal. We stated in Hearns v. States, 223 So.2d 738, 740 (Fla.1969), which dealt with a statutory requirement that convicted defendants be fingerprinted in open '(I)t is not beyond the legisl......
-
Moffett v. State, 69-250
...to a twelve-man jury). See: Williams v. State, Fla.App.1969, 224 So.2d 406; Morgan v. State, Fla.App.1969, 223 So.2d 801; Hearns v. State, Fla.1969, 223 So.2d 738. This opinion is not to be construed as preventing the State from filing any other charges against the appellant that might be j......
-
Bryant v. State, 69-544
...relied, § 915.01(2), Fla.Stat., F.S.A. Appellant's contention relating to the makeup of the jury is rejected on authority of Hearns v. State, Fla.1969, 223 So.2d 738; Williams v. State, Fla.App.1969, 224 So.2d Affirmed. ...