Royals v. State
| Decision Date | 19 April 1917 |
| Citation | 75 So. 199,73 Fla. 897 |
| Parties | ROYALS v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Criminal Court of Record, Duval County; Jas. M. Peeler Judge.
James Royals was convicted of an assault with intent to rape, and brings error. Reversed.
Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
Syllabus by the Court
In a criminal prosecution, where the defendant interposes a challenge to the array of jurors, on the ground of unlawful discrimination in their selection or impaneling, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, the burden of proof is upon him to establish the charge.
A challenge to the array of jurors on the ground of unlawful discrimination in their selection by the county commissioners is a serious charge, involving, not only dereliction of duty but violation of the Constitution of the United States, and such a charge, in a matter in which the law presumes they legally discharged their duty, 'should be duly, properly directly, and distinctly alleged, and, if not admitted by demurrer or otherwise,' should be proven by very strong and convincing testimony of witnesses of intelligence and unimpeachable integrity.
The decision of the trial judge, rendered after hearing the testimony, on issue joined on a challenge to the array of jurors on the ground of unlawful discrimination in their selection or impaneling, will not be disturbed unless the record discloses a condition from which this court can infer that he did not give the matter proper consideration.
COUNSEL W. H. Thompson and I. L. Purcell, both of Jacksonville, for plaintiff in error.
T. F. West, Atty. Gen., and C. O. Andrews, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Jim Royals, a negro, was convicted in the criminal court of record for Duval county, of the crime of assault with intent to commit rape on a negro girl, and asks a reversal on grounds set out in his assignment of errors.
The first error complained of is the denial of the defendant's challenge to the array of petit jurors, on the ground that the county commissioners of Duval county in selecting names of persons to do jury duty discriminated against all colored men of African descent, solely on account of their race, color, and previous condition of servitude. This question has been before this court on several occasions, and fully discussed in those cases. See Montgomery v. State, 53 Fla. 115, 42 So. 894; Montgomery v. State, 55 Fla. 97, 45 So. 879; Bonaparte v. State, 65 Fla. 287, 61 So. 633; Haynes v. State, 71 Fla. 585, 72 So. 180. In the case in 53 Florida there was a demurrer to the challenge, and this court held that the allegations in the challenge which the demurrer admitted to be true were sufficient to show discrimination. In the case in 55 Florida the state joined issue on the challenge, and the defendant introduced evidence in support of his allegations, and no testimony was offered in rebuttal by the state. It was held that the defendant had proven his challenge, and the same was overruled. In the case in 65 Florida, there was a joinder of issue on the challenge and the defendant supported it by testimony. The state called only one witness, a deputy sheriff, who testified that he had not discriminated against negroes in serving the venire. This case was reversed by a divided court of three to two, because the trial judge sustained the state's objection to a question asked this witness by the defendant on cross-examination. The Haynes Case, 71 Fla. 585, 72 So. 180, was decided on the ground that the testimony did not sustain the allegations of the challenge.
In a criminal prosecution, where the defendant interposes a challenge to the array of jurors, on the ground of unlawful discrimination in their selection or impaneling, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, the burden of proof is upon him to establish the charge.
The offense charged against the county commissioners is a serious one, involving, not only a dereliction of duty, but a violation of the Constitution of the United States, and such charge, in a matter in which the law presumes they legally discharged their duty, 'should be duly, properly, directly, and distinctly alleged, and, if not admitted by demurrer or otherwise,' should be proven by very strong and convincing testimony of witnesses of intelligence and unimpeachable integrity. In this, as in other matters where the trial judge has the witnesses before him, he can better judge of their character, their veracity, their interest, and their manner of testifying than can this court, and unless the record discloses a condition from which this court can infer that he did not give the matter proper consideration, his decision will not be disturbed.
In this case the state joined issue on the challenge, and the defendant called three witnesses: The first, Deputy Sheriff Plunk, testified that he had been deputy sheriff about 27 years, and could not remember seeing any colored men on the jury; that he had not taken any particular notice in the last 10 years, whether he had seen any negroes on the jury or not; that he did not think he had seen any in 5 years; that there were no negroes on the list of jurors which was handed him. Mr. R. C. Ingram had been clerk of the criminal court of record for Duval county 7 years, but not continuously. He could not answer whether he had seen negroes on the jury, or whether any 'colored names' were taken out of the box, and that he did not think any colored men had been summoned on the jury, all but one of whom had been drawn from the box for jury duty for that week. J. Horsey Smith testified that he was a physician and surgeon, and had lived in Duval county about 20 years, and had missed attending very few sessions of the criminal court of Duval county, and during that time he had not seen any colored men on the jury. He was asked, 'State whether or not, from your knowledge of the colored people of this city and county, and taking into consideration that you have practiced medicine for a number of years, and your experience, are there any colored men in this county of improved (sic) integrity, fair character, sound judgment and intelligence and fully qualified for jury duty?' to which he replied, 'Yes; there are many hundred qualified for jury duty.'
He separated his answer into two parts, answering 'yes' to the question if there were any negroes in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Porter v. State
...discrimination, but found that it was not shown to have been practiced. Haynes v. State, 1916, 71 Fla. 585, 72 So. 180; Royals v. State, 1917, 73 Fla. 897, 75 So. 199, and Washington v. State, 1928, 95 Fla. 289, 116 So. There are decisions which hold that a showing of great disparity betwee......
- Fire Ass'n of Philadelphia v. Evansville Brewing Ass'n