Russ v. State

• Decision Date: 07 June 1957
• Parties: Leonard Perry RUSS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 594

95 So.2d 594

Leonard Perry RUSS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida, En Banc.

June 7, 1957.

Raymond E. Ford, Fort Pierce, and Otis Whitehurst, Okeechobee, for appellant.

Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and Jos. P. Manners, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

O'CONNELL, Justice.

Leonard Perry Russ was tried by jury upon an indictment for murder in the first degree and was found guilty as charged. No recommendation of mercy was made. His motion for new trial was denied.

On appeal to this Court the judgment and sentence of death by electrocution was affirmed by opinion of this Court rendered January 16, 1957, 92 So.2d 811. Rehearing was denied on March 13, 1957.

Russ now presents to us a petition for permission to apply to the trial court for writ of error coram nobis. This is the proper procedure after an appellate court has affirmed a conviction sought to be disturbed. Chambers v. State, 1934, 117 Fla. 642, 158 So. 153, and cases therein cited.

The purpose of the writ of error coram nobis is to enable a party against whom a judgment has been rendered to gain relief from the judgment by applying to the same court in which the judgment was entered. It is brought to show an error of fact, defect in process, default in performance of duty by ministerial officers, and other matters none of which are apparent from the record. The showing must be such that if the matters shown had been before the trial court when judgment was entered, the court would have been precluded from entering the judgment. The party seeking the writ must have no other remedy.

Upon presentation to this Court of a petition for leave to apply for a writ of error coram nobis it becomes our duty to determine the legal effect of the facts and matters alleged therein. If we find them to be sufficient in legal effect, if established, we then grant permission to the petitioner to apply to the trial court for the writ. The trial court should then determine the truth of the allegations in the same manner as other issues of fact are determined. Chambers v. State, supra.

The effect of our granting the petition is equivalent to an order or mandate that the trial court allow the writ, that it determine the truth of the facts alleged in the petition and that if they be established as being true then the judgment should be set aside and new proceedings be had.

In the petition now before us counsel for Russ alleges the following facts:

'* * * at the conclusion of the trial on the 19th day of July, 1955, said jury retired to the jury room for consideration of its verdict. After some discussion, a ballot was taken with the result that said jury voted eight to four for a finding of guilty of murder in the first degree with a recommendation of mercy. Whereupon, a member of the jury, who had voted with said minority, stated openly to the whole jury that he could never accept such a verdict because he had personal knowledge that Appellant had severely beaten the deceased victim on numerous occasions, that Appellant had threatened to kill the deceased victim on numerous occasions, that the deceased victim's father had shot the arm of Appellant off from his doby with a shotgun because Appellant had beaten the deceased victim unmercifully on the day preceding the Shooting; and that, while he knew that these matters of fact had not been heard in evidence on the trial, he personally knew them to be true. Said juror proceeded to describe such alleged beatings, threats and acts of the Appellant upon and against the deceased victim, in great detail. Other jurors questioned said juror at great length upon such matters outside the evidence produced in the trial. Upon a second ballot, following said statements, questions and answers the jury returned its verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree without a recommendation of mercy which resulted in said judgment and sentence.'

To the petition there is attached an affidavit of one of Russ' counsel. He sets forth therein that during the month of January 1957, after judgment and sentence were entered and while his appeal was pending before us, he learned from the wife of one of the jurors serving in the trial of Russ that the jury had received prejudicial evidence out of court, other than through a view of premises, such having come about through the misconduct of a juror as set forth in that portion of the petition, above quoted. The affidavit further states that affiant contacted three of the jurors, who are named therein, and that each of said jurors verified each fact alleged in the petition and stated that they would, if called before the trial court, so testify under oath, but that they would not make affidavits because they feared punishment for violation of their oaths as jurors.

Russ contends that the matters of fact alleged in the petition and affidavit would have prevented entry of judgment and sentence by the trial court, if they had been before that court. He argues that his rights were prejudiced in that:

(1) One of the jurors was guilty of misconduct and had concealed his bias and prejudice against Russ on voir dire examination, and

(2) the jury had received strongly prejudicial evidence out of court, other than a view of premises.

He then concludes that both of the above reasons are grounds for new trial under Sec. 920.05, F.S.A.

An application for writ of error coram nobis is usually and should be made on sworn petition. It may be accompanied by affidavit in support thereof. It must set out the facts, not conclusions, which would vitiate the verdict and should show the evidence upon which the required facts can be proved and the source thereof. The burden is on one seeking to set aside a judgment of conviction to show and prove the facts relied upon by strong and convincing proof. 24 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 1606 c (6) and (8).

The rule generally is that affidavits and motions for new trial on the ground of jury misconduct should be based on positive knowledge either of the movant, or of the affiant whose affidavit is attached to the motion. However, it is obvious that there are situations where because of the secrecy afforded jury deliberations the moving party will have no personal knowledge of the misconduct and where he will for varied reasons be unable to obtain the affidavit of a juror as to such misconduct. At least two states have recognized that under such circumstances an affidavit in support of a motion for new trial made by one other than a juror on information and belief is sufficient, not as evidence, but for the purpose of activating inquiry by the court to determine the existence of such alleged misconduct.

In the case of State v. Page, 1908, 212 Mo. 224, 110 S.W. 1957, at page 1061, the court in considering a motion for new trial on the ground of jury misconduct, which motion was supported only by the affidavit of the defendant, said:

'* * * We have no hesitancy in saying that, in order to warrant such course, [granting of motion for new trial] the affidavit should be full and explicit, indicating fully as to whether or not he was an eyewitness--that is, witnessed personally the misconduct--or, if not, as to the persons from whom he obtained the information, and further indicating at least some sort of a reason why he is unable to secure the affidavit of any other witnesses aside from himself to support his motion for a new trial.'

This rule was followed by the Missouri court in the more recent case of State v. Blair, Mo.App.1955, 280 S.W.2d 687.

In the case of Means v. State, 1925, 100 Tex.Cr.R. 1, 271 S.W. 613, the court in considering a motion for new trial on the ground of jury misconduct, which motion was supported only by the affidavit of the defendant, held that such affidavit was sufficient to cause the court to determine the truth of the matters set forth in the affidavit by calling the jurors to give oral testimony, although the defendant's affidavit was alleged to be based on information and belief, not on actual knowledge. Subsequent opinions of the Texas court have recognized that the factual situation in the Means case made it an exception to the rule that affidavits of the jurors themselves must accompany a motion for new trial. However, Texas now follows the same rule as announced by the Missouri court in State v. Page, supra. Vyvial v. State, 1...