Hicks v. State
| Decision Date | 23 February 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 2401,2401 |
| Citation | 138 So.2d 101 |
| Parties | Durrell HICKS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
John R. Parrish, Tampa, for appellant.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and Robert R. Crittenden, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The defendant-appellant, Hicks, was informed against, tried by a jury, and convicted of the offense of aggravated assault, for which he was sentenced to a two year term in the Florida State Prison, hence this appeal.
The surrounding circumstances, out of which grew the incident here under consideration, concerned an alleged assault in connection with a labor union strike against a Tampa corporation. The complaining witness, Riley F. Bryan, claimed to have been beaten by the appellant, Hicks, with a lead pipe at the scene of the union's picket line, of which the appellant was a member.
Jury trial resulted in the taking of considerable testimony, most of which is conflicting in material respects. The appellant, Hicks, has assigned as error the insufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction of aggravated assault herein under consideration. It is within the province of the jury in a criminal case to resolve conflicting evidence. Di Bona v. State, Fla.App.1960, 121 So.2d 192. We have carefully considered all the testimony adduced in the trial of this case and conclude that the jury was justified in arriving at the verdict returned. Since the evidence adduced by the State was sufficient, if believed by the jury, to support the conviction, this court is not authorized to substitute its conclusions in this respect for those of the jury. Harvey v. State, Fla.1956, 87 So.2d 582.
In addition to his attack on the sufficiency of the evidence, the appellant challenges the latitude allowed him in the voir dire examination of jurors to determine their prejudice vel non against labor union activities and questions relating thereto. It is to be remembered that the assault charged against the appellant transpired during labor union picket line activities at the site of the concern against which this particular strike was called. More importantly, it is likewise to be remembered that the issue to be tried in this case was whether or not the appellant was guilty of the crime of aggravated assault.
Upon the commencement of the voir dire examination of jurors, the attorney for the appellant sought to elicit from the veniremen whether any of them were connected with the company against which the strike was called as well as their predilections concerning labor unions and the connected economic questions.
At one point in the voir dire examination, the appellant's attorney challenged a juror for cause. The court then questioned this juror as follows:
'Now, whatever your predilections may be would they yield to the evidence if you were satisfied after the evidence was in that they didn't do it, would you find them not guilty?
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Escobar v. State
...the chattels and, therefore, this finding of guilty should be affirmed. See: DiBona v. State, Fla.App.1960, 121 So.2d 192; Hicks v. State, Fla.App.1962, 138 So.2d 101; Crum v. State, Fla .App.1965, 172 So.2d 24. However, we fail to find evidence as to the market value of the chattels as of ......
-
Wooten v. State, 83-1211
...pending); Tacoronte v. State, 419 So.2d 789 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Mack v. State, 346 So.2d 1229 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Hicks v. State, 138 So.2d 101 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962). ...
-
Harper v. Adams, 63-630
...it would appear that the point is not well-taken under the following authorities: Green v. State, 40 Fla. 191, 23 So. 851; Hicks v. State, Fla.App.1962, 138 So.2d 101; 20 Fla.Jur., Juries, § Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the judgment under review is hereby affirmed. Affirmed. 1 C......
-
Morrow v. State
...instrument and, therefore, this conviction and sentence is affirmed. See: Di Bona v. State, Fla.App.1960, 121 So.2d 192; Hicks v. State, Fla.App.1962, 138 So.2d 101; Crum v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 24. We affirm the conviction of breaking and entering, but it appears that the State f......