Johnson v. State
| Decision Date | 23 April 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 37340,37340 |
| Parties | Jackie Lee JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Robert E. Jagger, Public Defender, and Joseph F. McDermott, Asst. Public Defender, for petitioner.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and William D. Roth, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
This cause is before the court for review of a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, which affirmed the judgments and convictions by the trial court. See Johnson v. State, 206 So.2d 673. We find that there is jurisdictional conflict with a prior decision of this court, Meade v. State, Fla.1956, 85 So.2d 613, 59 A.L.R.2d 835, on a statement of a general principle of law. Therefore, jurisdiction attaches under Section 4(2), Article V, of the Florida Constitution, F.S.A Petitioner, Jackie Lee Johnson, was informed against by two informations charging 'Uttering a Forged Check' and 'Uttering a Check with A Forged Endorsement'. One of the informations alleged that criminal acts had been committed on the 7th day of September, 1966, and the other charged that criminal acts had been committed on the next day, September 8th. The two cases were consolidated for jury trial and petitioner was found guilty of 'Uttering a Check with A Forged Endorsement' on each information and sentenced to concurrent terms of six months to five years on each charge. At trial the defendant contended that he should be allowed six peremptory challenges on each case but the trial judge allowed eight challenges and denied, over defendant's objections, challenges to aggregate twelve. On appeal the cases were again consolidated and the District Court held that appellant was entitled under F.S. § 913.08(2), F.S.A. to receive only the six peremptory challenges he received and that the two additional challenges he was allowed were within the discretion of the trial judge to grant or deny.
In Meade v. State, supra, which discussed F.S. § 913.08 the court considering consolidated cases held, '* * * the number of challenges * * * would be the same as the total number assured by the statute if separate trials should be conducted.' In view of the conflict of opinions involving the question of limiting a defendant's number of peremptory challenges we must decide whether in consolidated cases the charges are to be treated as separate counts of the same bill and therefore entitled to the six challenges allowed by statute in single cases or whether the number of peremptory challenges shall be multiplied by the number of cases consolidated for trial. We have carefully examined Meade v. State, supra, in which the major holding was that it was error for the trial court to consolidate the cases. We have examined Blackwelder v. State, (Fla.App.) 1958, 100 So.2d 834, which held that where the basis for informations arose out of a single incident, the evidence was secured simultaneously, and the witnesses were identical, the defendant was not entitled, upon consolidation of cases, to accumulate the number of peremptory challenges that would have been allowable if the cases had been tried separately. We have also reviewed Costantino v. State, Fla.App., 203 So.2d 647, cases from other jurisdictions, texts involving the same point of law, and must conclude that inasmuch as the object or purpose of consolidation of cases is to save time and expense to persons accused and time to the court and expense to the public, this purpose would be thwarted should the defendant be allowed as a matter of right the same number of challenges assured by the statute, as if separate trials were conducted. However, we feel as did the lowers courts that the trial judge in the interest of justice should be able in the exercise of his judicial discretion to grant additional challenges to the accumulative maximum based on the number of cases consolidated...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parker v. State
...to grant or deny additional peremptory challenges. Defendant has not shown any abuse of discretion in denying his request. Johnson v. State, 222 So.2d 191 (Fla.1969). Defendant's arguments on the denial of his challenges for cause are also meritless. The court reserved its ruling on the fir......
-
Macklin v. State, 78-11
...a similarity in circumstances which does not justify joinder under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.150(a). 3 Compare Johnson v. State, 222 So.2d 191 (Fla.1969); Hall v. State, 66 So.2d 863 (Fla.1953), cert. denied, 346 U.S. 931, 74 S.Ct. 321, 98 L.Ed. 422 (1954); Moore v. State, 259 So......
-
State v. Davis, 39872
...decisions of this Court. Therefore, jurisdiction attaches under Section 4(2), Article V, of the Florida Constitution, F.S.A. Johnson v. State, Fla.1969, 222 So.2d 191. In the trial court the state filed an amended information, numbered 17,351, in which the accused Davis was charged with two......
-
Kilgore v. State
...trial. See Meade v. State, Fla.1956, 85 So.2d 613, 59 A.L.R.2d 835; Johnson v. State, Fla.App.1968, 206 So.2d 673; Johnson v. State, Fla.1969, 222 So.2d 191; and McCoy v. State, Fla.App.1965 (2nd District) 175 So.2d 588. It is unnecessary to pause here to review these cited cases as the opi......