Rollins v. State, 31700
| Decision Date | 02 January 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 31700,31700 |
| Citation | 148 So.2d 274 |
| Parties | William Marrett ROLLINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Richard H. Hyatt, Sebring, for appellant.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and Bruce R. Jacob, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
William Marrett Rollins, the appellant, Michael Nelson and Donald Gene Walker, all negroes, were indicted for, pled not guilty to, and were thereafter jointly tried and convicted by one jury of the first degree murder of Henry P. Townsend, who was killed during the perpetration of a robbery by the three persons above named.
By its verdicts the jury recommended Nelson and Walker to the mercy of the court, but made no such recommendation as to Rollins.
Rollins' motion for a new trial was denied and he has appealed to this court.
At oral argument counsel for Rollins admitted that the evidence of guilt was adequate and that his client was responsible for his inexcusable criminal act of murder.
Only two questions are presented for our consideration. First, appellant contends that the trial court committed reversible error in overruling his challenge for cause directed to venireman William Cribbs. Second, he argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for severance.
Although ably presented by appellant's counsel neither of these two questions has merit.
On voir dire examination by appellant's counsel venireman Cribbs, after stating that he had formed no opinion as to the guilt or innocence of any of the three defendants 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.
Appellant's counsel challenged Cribbs for cause, stating no ground for the challenge although required to do so by Sec. 913.05, F.S.A. The challenge was denied and Rollins' counsel exercised his sixth peremptory challenge in order to excuse Cribbs from the jury.
Thereafter, several other veniremen were called and excused, some for cause and others on peremptory challenge by the other defendants and by Rollins. Ultimately Rollins used all his peremptory challenges. There still remained one juror to be selected and venireman Braxton was called. On voir dire examination by Rollins' counsel Braxton indicated that even if one defendant was shown to have inflicted the mortal wounds he still might recommend such defendant to the mercy of the court. Rollins' counsel did not challenge Braxton for cause and he was selected as a juror.
We have outlined the above facts in order to clearly demonstrate, first, that the trial judge did not err in denying the challenge for cause to Cribbs, and second, that assuming for sake of argument that it was error to deny the challenge to Cribbs, Rillins had not shown that he was thereby required to accept an objectionable or unqualified juror after he exhausted his peremptory challenges.
In Singer v. State, Fla.1959, 109 So.2d 7, we held that conduct during a trial which prejudiced the defendant's right to a fair and impartial consideration of the question of mercy was reversible error. We have never held that to be qualified a juror must state that he will grant mercy to one shown to be guilty of the crime of the murder with which he is charged. On the contrary, we have stated that it seems to us to be
'* * * proper to inject the question of mercy in voir dire examination only when the venireman indicates that he can and will determine guilt of a capital crime according to the evidence but will nevertheless, irrespective of the evidence, use the power to recommend mercy because of conscientious scruples, beliefs, convictions or opinions against taking life as punishment for crime.' Piccott v. State, Fla.1960, 116 So.2d 626, 629.
At one point the trial judge ruled that Rollins' counsel's questioning the veniremen on the issue of whether they would or would not grant mercy was improper, but counsel nevertheless continued to pursue the questions.
The trial judge was correct, for such questions, except under the circumstances mentioned in Piccott v. State, supra, are improper. There may be other circumstances where such a line of questioning is proper but it has not yet been called to our attention.
We point out, further, that in his challenge to Cribbs, counsel for Rollins did not specify the grounds of his challenge as required by statute. Sec. 913.05, F.S.A. This would be sufficient to justify the denial of the challenge. Singer v. State, 109 So.2d 7, supra.
More important, again assuming that the denial of the challenge for cause was error, appellant Rollins had wholly failed to show that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Williams
...12 Ohio App.2d 204, 232 N.E.2d 414 (1967); Patterson v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 653, 283 S.E.2d 212 (1981). But see Rollins v. State, 148 So.2d 274 (Fla.1963). In State v. Greer, 22 W.Va. 800 (1883), it was held not to be error for the trial court to question the prospective jurors in a murde......
-
Busby v. State
...to ensure that defendants receive an impartial jury. See Carroll v. State, 139 Fla. 233, 190 So. 437, 438 (1939). In Rollins v. State, 148 So.2d 274, 276 (Fla.1963), this Court refused to reverse a conviction based on an erroneous denial of a cause challenge because a peremptory challenge w......
-
Penn v. State, 74123
...So. 381, 383 (1923). Accord Trotter v. State, No. 70,714 (Fla.1990); Floyd v. State, 569 So.2d 1225 (Fla.1990); Pen tecost; Rollins v. State, 148 So.2d 274 (Fla.1963); McRae v. State, 62 Fla. 74, 57 So. 348 (1912). The United States Supreme Court recently echoed Young's reasoning and conclu......
-
Moore v. State, 65-409.
...on the motion for severance. See: Manson v. State, Fla. 1956, 88 So.2d 272; Rankin v. State, Fla. 1962, 143 So.2d 193; Rollins v. State, Fla. 1963, 148 So.2d 274. We find ample evidence sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict. See: Di Bona v. State, Fla.App. 1960, 121 So.2d 192; Sharon v. ......