Sutton v. State
| Decision Date | 10 April 1951 |
| Citation | 51 So.2d 725 |
| Parties | SUTTON v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Hubbard & Carr, of Miami, and Watkins & Cohen, of Tallahassee, for appellant.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen. and Reeves Bowen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant was tried and convicted on an information charging that he did lewdly and lasciviously fondle a female child under the age of fourteen years, contrary to Section 800.04, F.S.A. A sentence of three years in the State penitentiary was imposed and the defendant appealed.
After the jury deliberated two hours without reaching a verdict it returned to the court room and requested the court to advise it as to what punishment would be imposed if the defendant was found guilty. To this request the court replied;
With this rather salty admonition the jury retired to the box and returned shortly with a verdict of guilty. It then attempted to explain the reason for its question relating to the punishment that would be imposed if defendant was pronounced guilty. It also stated that it desired to make a recommendation but the court declined to accept it. This colloquy between the court and the jury, particularly the quoted response to the jury's request, is the basis of the first assignment of error.
We think this colloquy shows that the jury was in search of information to aid it in reaching a correct verdict. It also shows that the trial court misconceived the function of the court and the jury in a trial like this. It may well be that his admonition tended to frustrate or embarrass the jury and produced a verdict that it would not have returned if it had been given sympathetic and helpful treatment. In our system of jurisprudence, the jury is of ancient and constitutional sanction, Sections 3 and 11, Declaration of Rights, Constitution of Florida, F. S. A. and by the same token it is accorded a function on the horizontal with that of the trial judge. It is in no sense a menial to be ordered hither and yon by the court, it performs an extremely important duty and neither its duty nor that performed by the court can be done properly in the absence of mutual aid and assistance. It resolves controversies of fact about which the judge cannot speak or apply the rule of law till the jury announces its judgment. The law applied by the court arises from the factual truth adduced by the jury. In reality the trial of a case like this is nothing more than a realistic search for the truth by court and jury. The jury has a perfect right to return to the court room at any time and ask questions that are calculated to shed light on the controversy or that will in any way assist it or the court in developing the truth of the controversy. The question propounded by the jury in this case was well within the allowable ambit and we think it was entitled to a courteous, helpful answer....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bennett M. Lifter, Inc. v. Varnado By and Through Varnado
...deliberations actually commenced, as an apparent preparatory act, so there is not the slightest evidence of confusion. Cf. Sutton v. State, 51 So.2d 725 (Fla.1951) (where jury, two hours into its deliberation, asked questions calculated to shed light on the controversy, nature of confusion ......
-
Sears Roebuck and Co. v. Polchinski, 93-0113
...to ask questions calculated to shed light on the controversy or which will assist the jury in arriving at a just result. Sutton v. State, 51 So.2d 725, 726 (Fla.1951). A jury's understanding of the applicable law is integral to a trial by jury. This is why Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.......
-
Barrow v. State
...shed light on the controversy or that will in any way assist it or the court in developing the truth of the controversy." Sutton v. State, 51 So.2d 725, 726 (Fla.1951). Part of a trial judge's role is to forthrightly make the jury aware of those tools available under the rules of criminal p......
-
Pait v. State
...presented at the trial. The quoted question certainly indicates a serious consideration of the subject of mercy by the jury. Sutton v. State, Fla.1951, 51 So.2d 725. Whether they were persuaded against it by the eloquence of the prosecutor, part of which was improper and erroneous, we as an......