Russom v. State
Decision Date | 16 September 1958 |
Docket Number | No. 57-142,57-142 |
Citation | 105 So.2d 380 |
Parties | Curtis RUSSOM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
R. K. Bell, Miami, for appellant.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and John C. Reed, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant was indicted, tried and convicted of rape. A majority of the jury recommended mercy and the court sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment. This appeal is from the judgment of conviction and sentence.
The appellant has raised four points upon which he seeks reversal of the conviction and sentence. Nowhere does the appellant attack the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury verdict. His principal attack is upon alleged procedural errors occurring during the course of the trial, all of which he concludes were prejudicial to the appellant and require a reversal. Inasmuch as we are confronted with a judgment and sentence which deprive the appellant of his liberty for life, we shall consider all of the alleged errors presented.
On cross examination of the appellant, the prosecutor attempted to elicit certain information regarding a possible unpleasant occurrence in Victoria, Texas. Counsel for the appellant objected to this line of examination and was upheld by the trial judge. The questioning never reached the state of disclosing anything prejudicial to the appellant; however, upon request of appellant's counsel, the trial judge instructed the jury to disregard the questions. We fail to find any error harmful to the appellant as a result of this interchange. Some of the information was volunteered by the appellant prior to objection and certain other information was later explained. No harm to the appellant is apparent.
The appellant also objects to the testimony of an examining physician whose statement tended to show that the prosecutrix was chaste, on the ground that the state was putting the prosecutrix' character into issue when the defendant had not attacked it. This position is clearly without merit. The appellant's whole defense was based upon the consent of the prosecutrix and accordingly, testimony regarding her chasity would be admissible. Raulerson v. State, Fla.1958, 102 So.2d 281. The court was presented with competent medical opinion, which was not rebutted, to the effect that the prosecutrix was a virgin prior to the rape.
The appellant also contends that the trial judge erred in refusing to compel the State Attorney to produce all pre-trial statements by witnesses or the prosecutrix for examination by appellant's counsel. The testimony and evidence adduced at trial never disclosed the existence of any statements given to the State Attorney nor did the motion designate a particular statement or paper. The motion was made on the belief of appellant's counsel that such writings did exist. We have reviewed the motion to compel the production of the alleged documents and find it to be beyond the scope of the rule in Jencks v. United States, 353 U.S. 657, 77 S.Ct. 1007, 1 L.Ed.2d 1103. In Smith v. State, Fla.1957, 95 So.2d 525, the court held that a State Attorney could not use pre-trial statements and memoranda for impeachment purposes without permitting defense counsel to examine them. This is not the case we have before us. The state had used no such statements nor is there any evidence that such statements exist.
A more serious question is raised by the appellant's final point. He contends that he was denied a fair and impartial trial through the misconduct of one juror. The misconduct complained of consisted of the alleged concealment of prejudice by the juror when questioned on voir dire examination. Subsequent to the trial, the juror made certain comments indicating previous experience of a similar nature involving his daughter. The appellant made this incident a ground of his motion for new trial and the court below heard testimony, including the juror's upon the question of the alleged misconduct. The motion was denied.
The determination of the qualifications and conduct of jurors is under the sole jurisdiction of the trial judge and any decision thereon rests largely within his discretion. See Adams v. Elliott, 128 Fla. 79, 174 So. 731, 736. We review these proceedings to the end of determining if an abuse of discretion is evident. The juror testified as follows:
'Q. (By Mr. Bell) Did you make a statement? 'A. When I left this courtroom here, the Judge told me we were free and clear to discuss the case. A gentleman came up to me and said, 'How did you decide this case?'
'Q. Don't tell us--
'The Court: Go ahead.
'A. (Continued) 'How did you decide this case?' I said, 'Mr., it was just and nothing I could do.' Mr. Bell asked without any doubt, any shadow of a doubt whether there was any guilt. I said, 'This thing has got to stop; it's got to stop.' I said, 'Something happened like this some years ago to my daughter. My wife threw it out. She said, 'Oh, there is nothing to it. " But naturally a man is going to look and take care of his own family. I said, 'If that was the case, I don't like it.' I even say today it has got to stop. I didn't make any statement to any newspaper man, and he can't come up before this court and actually give any record of any words I said, except 'It has got to stop; this happened years ago to my family.'
'
A deputy clerk of the trial court testified:
A newspaper reporter testified:
'Q. (By Mr. Bell) What did he say to you? A. That he was one of the four who refused to recommend mercy, because he would let no rapist free to run on the streets, especially after the experience of his own daughter.
'Q. Di...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Shouse
...Fla.App.1959, 112 So.2d 284 (statements taken by solicitor to determine whether or not information should be filed); Russom v. State, Fla.App.1958, 105 So.2d 380 (cert. dismissed, 1959, 109 So.2d 30) (pre-trial statements of prosecutrix and witnesses); Annot. 156 A.L.R. 345 (1945).10 18 U.S......
-
Lebowitz v. State
...the alleged misconduct must be shown to have influenced the verdict and to have caused injury to the complaining party. Russom v. State, Fla.App.1958, 105 So.2d 380. The record before us is devoid of any evidence indicating adverse influence upon any member of the jury stemming from the con......
-
Ellison v. Cribb
...Co. of America v. Carver (10th Cir. 1958) 257 F.2d 111; Photostat Corporation v. Ball (10th Cir. 1964) 338 F.2d 783.7 Russom v. State (Fla.App.1958) 105 So.2d 380; State v. Ramirez (Fla.1954) 73 So.2d 218; Marks v. State Road Department (Fla.1954) 69 So.2d 771; City of Miami v. Bopp, 117 Fl......
-
Sims v. State
...of juror qualifications is a function of the trial judge, whose decisions in this area are largely discretionary. Russom v. State, Fla.App.1958, 105 So.2d 380, 382; Adams v. Elliott, 1937, 128 Fla. 79, 174 So. 731. The Florida Supreme Court set out the general rule applicable here in Piccot......