Poole v. State
| Decision Date | 15 March 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 35175,35175 |
| Citation | 194 So.2d 903 |
| Parties | Sammie Lee POOLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Richard H. Hyatt, Sebring, and David F. Lanier, Avon Park, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Stanley D. Kupiszewski, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
By trial held December 15, 1965 Appellant Sammie Lee Poole was found guilty of rape, with no recommendation of mercy being made, and sentenced to death. Motion for new trial was denied and Appellant appealed to this Court. On appeal Appellant presents the following assignments of error:
'(1) The verdict upon which the appealed judgment of conviction is based was not supported by the evidence.
(2) The judgment of conviction is contrary to the law of the case.
(3) The Court erred in failing to allow counsel appointed for Defendant on voir dire examination to examine jurymen on the question of a recommendation of mercy in a conviction of rape.'
A thorough and detailed study of the record leads us to conclude that the first two assignments of error cited are devoid of merit, and we hereby dispose of the same without comment.
We do, however, find merit as to the third assignment of error and will direct discussion to this point. By refusing to allow defense counsel to raise any question whatsoever as to feelings, attitudes or prejudices of prospective jurors regarding the issue of recommendation of mercy in a conviction of rape, we believe that the trial judge committed reversible error.
Our decision in this matter is made in full cognizance of the fact that the able trial judge was acting in accord with what he considered applicable law on this point. The record appears to indicate that his decision was based on his interpretation of the law on this general issue announced by us in the case of Rollins v. State, Fla., 148 So.2d 274. In Rollins we held, inter alia, that it was not error for the trial judge to deny a challenge for cause directed to a venireman who, after stating that he had formed no opinion as to the guilt or innocence of any of the three defendants involved and knew no reason why he could not serve as a fair and impartial juror, stated that he did not see how he could recommend mercy to any one of the three who might be shown by the evidence to have committed the murder which led to the prosecution. In so holding we stated that there is no rule that in order to be qualified as a juror one must state that he will grant mercy to one shown guilty of a capital crime. We further, and more pertinent to the issue at hand, stated in regard to the question of mercy in capital cases that
(at 276)
Upon careful and deliberate study of the above rule of law, and with thorough analyzation of the matter in the context of the immediate situation, we reach the decision that justice requires no less than that we recede from our opinion on this point as announced in Rollins, supra. We recede from the concept that the question of mercy may be injected only in the above-quoted situation because it appears to us inconsistent with logic and fairness to allow prosecution the privilege of asking questions on the issue of mercy...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Irving v. State
...which are binding on this Court. Crawford v. Bounds, 395 F.2d 297 (4th Cir.1968); Thomas v. State, 403 So.2d 371 (Fla.1981); Poole v. State, 194 So.2d 903 (Fla.1967); State v. Henry, 198 So. 910 (La.1940); Patterson v. Commonwealth, 283 S.E.2d 212 While this issue may have arisen in this Co......
-
Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Gellert
...right to have a fair opportunity to make an intelligent judgment as to exercise of peremptory challenges. See, e.g., Poole v. State, 194 So.2d 903 (Fla.1967) (error for court to refuse to permit questioning regarding mercy recommendations); Barker v. Randolph, 239 So.2d 110 (error for court......
-
Davis v. State
...he would consider. Davis argues that Mosier should have been dismissed for cause, relying on this Court's opinions in Poole v. State, 194 So.2d 903 (Fla.1967), and Thomas v. State, 403 So.2d 371 (Fla.1981). We do not agree that Poole and Thomas control this Poole is distinguished on its fac......
-
Gootee v. Clevinger
...cast some doubt on this point. In Rollins v. State, 148 So.2d 274, 276 (Fla.1963), overruled in part on other grounds, Poole v. State, 194 So.2d 903 (Fla.1967), the court refused to reverse a conviction based on an erroneous ruling on a challenge for cause because "Rollins has not shown tha......