Rudd v. State ex rel. Christian
Decision Date | 10 February 1975 |
Docket Number | No. 46476,46476 |
Citation | 310 So.2d 295 |
Parties | The Honorable John A. RUDD and the Honorable Ben C. Willis, as Judges of the Second Judicial Circuit, in and for Leon County, Florida, Petitioners, v. STATE of Florida ex rel. Floyd T. CHRISTIAN, Respondent. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., George R. Georgieff, Raymond L. Marky and Michael M. Corin, Asst. Attys. Gen., T. Edward Austin, Assigned State's Atty., and Aaron K. Bowden, Asst. State's Atty., for petitioners.
Joseph C. Jacobs and E. C. Deeno Kitchen, Ervin, Varn, Jacobs & Odom, Tallahassee, and Robert L. Floyd and Michael A. Pohl, Frates, Floyd, Pearson, Stewart, Proenza and Richman, Miami, for respondent.
Reubin O'D. Askew, Governor of Florida, and Arthur C. Canaday, Gen. Counsel, Tallahassee, for amicus curiae.
E. J. Salcines, Jr. and David H. Bludworth, State's Attys., for Florida Prosecuting Attys. Association, amicus curiae.
This cause is here on petition for writ of certiorari, supported by certificate of the District Court of Appeal, First District, that its decision reported in 302 So.2d 821 (opinion filed November 5, 1974), is one which involves a question of great public interest. See Fla.Const., art. V, § 3(b) (3), F.S.A.
This is a companion case to Austin v. State ex rel. Christian, 310 So.2d 289, in which our opinion was filed this date.
Several indictments were returned against Floyd T. Christian. He filed motions to dismiss the indictments on the grounds that,
before the grand jury constituted a violation of Fla.Stat. § 905.17(1) and 905.19, F.S.A., and
The motion to dismiss was denied.
Thereupon, Christian filed a suggestion for writ of prohibition and in the alternative petitioned for writ of common law certiorari in an effort to prevent trial on the indictments. The District Court of Appeal held that prohibition was not a proper remedy under the circumstances, but that common law certiorari was an appropriate remedy. Under the circumstances of this particular case, we cannot say that the District Court of Appeal abused its discretion in issuing the common law writ of certiorari.
Upon review, it was held that Christian was not entitled to a dismissal of the indictments because they were returned prior to his resignation from office as the Commissioner of Education. However, the District Court held that the indictments were subject to the motion to dismiss because the Assistant State Attorneys simultaneously appeared before the grand jury in violation of Fla.Stat. §§ 905.17 and 905.19, F.S.A.
We approve that portion of the decision holding that Christian could be indicted prior to impeachment or conviction pursuant to Fla.Const., art. III, § 17, F.S.A., resignation or completion of his term of office.
In the case Sub judice, the assigned State Attorney and his assigned Assistants interrogated witnesses before the Leon County Grand Jury. On some occasions the State Attorney and his two Assistants appeared simultaneously before the Grand Jury and on other occasions only the assigned Assistants were present.
These Assistants, being improperly assigned, were not authorized to be in the Grand Jury room. See companion case of Austin v. State ex rel. Christian, 310 So.2d 289 (opinion filed February 10, 1975). As stated by the District Court of Appeal in this case:
.'
While the presence in the Grand Jury room of persons other than those specifically authorized by statute is highly irregular and should not be condoned, the presence of such persons does not render an indictment ipso facto void. State ex rel. Losey v. Willard, 54 So.2d 183 (Fla.1951). An objection that an unauthorized person was in the Grand Jury room is not based upon fundamental grounds. Therefore, if this objection is not presented by a motion to dismiss, it is taken to have been waived. Cr.P.R., Rule 3.190(c). The objection was timely made in the case Sub judice by motion to dismiss. The District Court held that the trial court erred in denying this motion. We agree.
Fla.Stat. § 905.17(1), F.S.A., provides as follows:
Fla.Stat. § 905.19, F.S.A., provides as follows:
In construing these statutes, the District Court of Appeal said:
We disagree with this construction of the statutes and agree with the decision in Dotty v. State, 197 So.2d 315 (Fla.App.4th, 1967), where the Court said:
'Appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to quash the indictment on the ground the prosecuting attorney and the assistant prosecuting attorney were both present before the grand jurors at the same time for the purpose of examining witnesses in their presence and giving the grand jurors legal advice regarding the offense lodged against the appellant contrary to F.S.A. §§ 905.17 and 905.19.' (p. 316)
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Whether a Former President May Be Indicted and Tried for the Same Offenses for Which He was Impeached by the House and Acquitted by the Senate, 00-14
... ... the equivalent clauses in state constitutions. Of the ... forty-five state constitutions that authorize ... relies upon the other Stale ex. rel Christian v ... Rudd, 302 So.2d 821, 825 (Fla Dist. Ct. App 1974), ... ...
-
Beach Towing Servs., Inc. v. Sunset Land Assocs., LLC
...LLC v. Branch Banking & Tr. Co., 6:13-CV-372-ORL-36, 2014 WL 2625255, at *7 (M.D. Fla. June 12, 2014) (quoting Rudd v. State ex rel. Christian, 310 So. 2d 295, 298 (Fla. 1975) ). In addition, the series-qualifier canon provides that, "when there is a straightforward, parallel construction t......
-
Blue Heron Beach Resort Developer, LLC v. Branch Banking & Trust Co.
...generally corresponding to 'either' as 'either this or that'; a connective that marks an alternative." Rudd v. State ex rel. Christian, 310 So. 2d 295, 298 (Fla. 1975) (citations omitted). Nonetheless, "[t]here are, of course, familiar instances in which the conjunctive 'or' is held equival......
-
State ex rel. Florida Petroleum Marketers Ass'n, Inc. v. McClure
...grand jury under circumstances later disapproved. Austin v. State ex rel. Christian, 310 So.2d 289 (Fla.1975); Rudd v. State ex rel. Christian, 310 So.2d 295 (Fla.1975). The information was filed within three months after the indictment was Sec. 932.465(2), F.S.1973, provided: 'Prosecution ......