Jones v. State
| Decision Date | 28 September 1956 |
| Citation | 92 So.2d 261 |
| Parties | Byron JONES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and David U. Tumin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The question here which merits consideration is whether a portion of the trial court's charge to the jury constitutes reversable error. In instructing the jurors with reference to their deliberation, the trial judge stated:
This would infer that such a juror would be a stubborn mule or a jackass. Such a statement is anything but judicial. However, we fail to find any reversable error therein since there is no indication as to which party such stubbornness, if any, would be directed.
Judgment below is affirmed.
THOMAS, J., agrees to the word 'affirmance'.
On Rehearing Granted
On rehearing granted, we have concluded that the giving of the charge quoted in our former opinion denied to the appellant the fair and impartial trial guaranteed to him by Section 11 of the Declaration of Rights of our constitution, F.S.A. In this state, the verdict of the jury must be unanimous. The charge in question would, at least, create an embarrassing situation for any single juror whose honest conviction of the guilt or innocence of the accused is contrary to that of his fellow jurors and could very well deter him from asserting and arguing his views. Such an impediment to the exercise by a juror of a free and independent judgment is, in our opinion, inconsistent with the mandate of Section 11, supra.
Accordingly, we recede from our former opinion and hold that the judgment appealed from should be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hurst v. State
...that “[o]f course, a verdict must be concurred in by the unanimous vote of the entire jury.” Almost half a century later, in Jones v. State, 92 So.2d 261 (Fla.1956), again acknowledging that “[i]n this state, the verdict of the jury must be unanimous,” this Court held that any interference ......
-
Bottoson v. Moore
...Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.440 states that no jury verdict may be rendered unless all jurors agree. Furthermore, in Jones v. State, 92 So.2d 261 (Fla.1956), this Court held that any interference with the right to a unanimous verdict denies the defendant a fair trial. However, in Florida, ......
-
Butler v. State, SC95158.
...to Bench, 8 Fla. 459, 482 (1859) ("The common law wisely requires the verdict of a petit jury to be unanimous."); see also Jones v. State, 92 So.2d 261, 261 (Fla.1956) ("In this state, the verdict of the jury must be unanimous."); Grant v. State, 33 Fla. 291, 14 So. 757, 758 (1894) (stating......
-
Diecidue v. State, 30913
...'the fair and impartial trial guaranteed to him by Section 11 of the Declaration of Rights of our constitution, F.S.A.' Jones v. State, Fla., 92 So.2d 261. Unlike the case of Reynolds v. State, 92 Fla. 1038, 111 So. 285, wherein the charge was possession of intoxicating liquor (We do not no......