State v. Ramirez
Decision Date | 08 June 1954 |
Citation | 73 So.2d 218 |
Parties | STATE v. RAMIREZ. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and Reeves Bowen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Branch & Goff, Tampa, for appellee.
Eloy Ramirez was tried for the crime of rape and the jury returned a verdict of guilty with a recommendation to mercy. Within the time provided by law, the defendant filed a motion for new trial which contained the ground that 'The verdict as announced was not the unanimous verdict of the jury as is evidenced by the affidavit of the juror, William Henry Cowart * * *.' Attached to the motion was an affidavit executed by the said Cowart to the effect that at all times during the course of the jury's deliberations he was convinced of the defendant's innocence but failed to register any objection to the verdict returned by the jury because of his understanding and belief from the charges given by the trial judge that only a majority vote for a conviction by the members of the jury was necessary in order to convict the defendant, and that when a majority so voted he had no right to protest but was bound by such majority vote.
The motion for new trial came on for hearing and at the conclusion of the argument the trial judge entered the following order:
'Although the general rule is that a juror cannot impeach the verdict of the jury, nevertheless, considering the above facts, I am convinced that the ends of justice require granting the defendant * * * a new trial and resubmitting the case to another jury.
'It is therefore adjudged and ordered that the verdict of guilty in this case be, and the same is hereby vacated and set aside, and * * * the Motion of the defendant for a New Trial * * * is hereby granted * * *.'
The State of Florida has appealed from this ruling. Section 924.07, Florida Statutes 1951, F.S.A.
It is apparent from the order appealed from that the trial judge, in granting the motion for new trial, considered only the ground which we have noted above, although there were other grounds contained in the motion.
As to the ground upon which the new trial was ordered, it is settled that a juror, after solemnly entering his verdict in court, is not to be believed or heard when, after the discharge of the jury of which he was a member, he swears that he never approved or consented to the verdict; and that after the return of a verdict in open court the testimony of jurors as to motives and influences by which their deliberations were governed should not be received.
As the matter is stated in Turner v. State, 99 Fla. 246, 126 So. 158, 159:
In fact 'the rule is general, with but few exceptions, if any, that the testimony of jurors will not be received to impeach their verdict.' Linsley v. State, 88 Fla. 135, 101 So. 273, 275; 27 R.C.L. 896; Bartlett v. Patton, 33 W.Va. 71, 10 S.E. 21, 5 L.R.A. 523.
'The matters stated in the affidavit show that it inheres essentially in the verdict itself.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Devoney
...denied, 467 U.S. 1246, 104 S.Ct. 3525, 82 L.Ed.2d 832 (1984); McAllister Hotel, Inc. v. Porte, 123 So.2d 339 (Fla.1959); State v. Ramirez, 73 So.2d 218 (Fla.1954).3 Over the many years since Marks, the appellate courts have consistently refused to invalidate verdicts when the asserted groun......
-
Brown v. State
...is a matter said "essentially [to] inhere in the verdict itself." Russ v. State, 95 So.2d 594, 600 (Fla.1957). Accord, State v. Ramirez, 73 So.2d 218 (Fla.1954); Parker v. State, 336 So.2d 426 (1st DCA 1976), appeal dismissed, 341 So.2d 292 (Fla.1977). No rule is better established in this ......
-
Maler By and Through Maler v. Baptist Hosp. of Miami, Inc., 89-756
...erroneous belief by one juror that a majority of the jury governed on the issue of guilt or innocence in a criminal case, State v. Ramirez, 73 So.2d 218 (Fla.1954); (c) an erroneous belief by the jury that the lesser offense of which they convicted the defendant was the highest offense char......
-
Ellison v. Cribb
...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 Fla. 532, 158 So. 89, 97 A.L.R. 1035.8 Flori......