State v. Garcia

Decision Date10 December 1969
Docket NumberNo. 38790,38790
PartiesThe STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Domingo GARCIA, Respondent.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Richard E. Gerstein, State's Atty., Jack R. Blumenfeld and Charles D. Edelstein, Asst. State's Attys., Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Arden M. Siegendorf, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.

Richard G. Taylor, Miami, for respondent.

ADKINS, Justice.

This cause is here on petition for writ of certiorari supported by certificate of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, that its decision reported in 224 So.2d 395 is one which involves a question of great public interest. See § 4(2), art. V, Fla.Const., F.S.A.

The only question presented is whether a trial by jury can be waived by a defendant who, under indictment for a capital offense, has pleaded not guilty. This question was answered in the affirmative by the District Court.

The Florida Statutes relating to this question are as follows:

'Whoever is convicted of a capital offense and recommended to the mercy of the court by a majority of the jury in their verdict, shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life; Or if found by the judge of the court, where there is no jury, to be entitled to a recommendation to mercy, shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life, at the discretion of the court.' (Emphasis supplied) F.S.A. § 919.23(2).

'In all cases Except where a sentence of death may be imposed trial by jury may be waived by the defendant. Such waiver shall be made in open court and an indorsement thereof made on the indictment or information and signed by the defendant.' (Emphasis supplied) F.S.A. § 912.01.

Sec. 3, art. V, Fla.Const., F.S.A., requires that the practice and procedure in all courts be governed by rules adopted by the Supreme Court. In accordance with this constitutional mandate this Court adopted the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure which, by express provision, governs the 'procedure of all criminal proceedings in state courts.' Rule 1.010, Cr.P.R., 33 F.S.A Rule 1.260, Cr.P.R., reads as follows:

'A defendant may, in writing, waive a jury trial with the approval of the court and the consent of the state.'

The rule, having been adopted pursuant to the constitutional provision, supersedes any legislative enactment governing practice and procedure to the extent that the statute and the rule may be inconsistent. See Jaworski v. City of Opa-Locka, 149 So.2d 33 (Fla.1963). The rules adopted by the Supreme Court are limited to matters of procedure, for a rule cannot abrogate or modify substantive law. In some instances it is difficult to determine whether a rule relates to a matter that is substantive or a matter that is procedural, but this difficulty does not exist in the case sub judice. Rule 1.260, Cr.P.R., merely prescribes the procedure and method of waiving a jury trial. It does not abrogate or modify substantive law.

Procedural law is sometimes referred to as 'adjective law' or 'law of remedy' or 'remedial law' and has been described as the legal machinery by which substantive law is made effective. Substantive law has been defined as that part of the law which creates, defines, and regulates rights, or that part of the law which courts are established to administer. See 52A C.J.S., Law, page 741; 20 Am.Jur.2d, Courts, § 84.

The California Court in Estate of Gogabashvele, 195 Cal.App.2d 503, 16 Cal.Rptr. 77 (1961) said:

'As used in jurisprudence, the term 'right' connotes the capacity of asserting a legally enforceable claim. Legal rights have been classified as substantive and remedial. Substantive rights are those existing for their own sake and constituting the normal legal order of society, i.e., the rights of life, liberty, property and reputation. Remedial rights arise for the purpose of protecting or enforcing substantive rights.'

As related to criminal law and procedure, substantive law is that which declares what acts are crimes and prescribes the punishment therefor, while procedural law is that which provides or regulates the steps by which one who violates a criminal statute is punished. See State v. Augustine, 197 Kan. 207, 416 P.2d 281 (1966).

The right of trial by jury is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
71 cases
  • Dumas v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • September 13, 1983
    ...in the record. The waiver of a jury trial is a procedural matter which is governed by rules adopted by the supreme court. State v. Garcia, 229 So.2d 236 (Fla.1969). Our determination on this direct appeal does not preclude defendant from seeking review of the waiver of jury trial by means o......
  • Delisle v. Crane Co.
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • October 15, 2018
    ...authority vested in it by the Florida Constitution." Id. at 384 (citing art. II, § 3, art. V, § 2, Fla. Const.; State v. Garcia , 229 So.2d 236, 238 (Fla. 1969) ). We noted that the copy requirement contained in the rule provided an extra and unnecessary burden on the operation of this Cour......
  • Smith v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • December 17, 2009
    ...criminal conduct or is simply a rule of evidence." Id. at 48. The court found that, based on this Court's precedent in State v. Garcia, 229 So.2d 236, 238 (Fla. 1969), and Caple v. Tuttle's Design-Build, Inc., 753 So.2d 49, 53 (Fla.2000), the change is substantive, in line with Substantivel......
  • Nova v. State, 82-1766
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • September 13, 1983
    ...in this state by a jury of less than twelve, provided there is a valid waiver of the right to a twelve-person jury, see State v. Garcia, 229 So.2d 236 (Fla.1969); Roth v. State, 385 So.2d at 115, Nova's claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to assert that a jury of less than twelve......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT