Tait v. State, 76-2412
| Decision Date | 28 June 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-2412,76-2412 |
| Citation | 362 So.2d 292 |
| Parties | Cameron TAIT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, James L. Eisenberg, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, and Linda L. Hagerty, Legal Intern, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Richard P. Zaretsky and Glenn H. Mitchell, Asst. Attys. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Article I Section 16 of the Florida Constitution provides that every accused shall have the right to be heard in person, by counsel or both. Notwithstanding, the trial court denied the appellant's pro se motion, before trial, to act as co-counsel at his trial for second degree murder. We reverse.
We are not convinced that we like the result in this case, but we cannot ignore the plain unequivocal language of our constitutional provision which says:
"In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall . . . have the right . . . to be heard in person, by counsel OR BOTH." Art. I § 16 Fla.Const. (emphasis supplied.)
We recognize and approve of the result in Thompson v. State, 194 So.2d 649 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1967) and Powell v. State, 206 So.2d 47 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968), where both courts interpreted the very same constitutional phrase "or both" to not grant an absolute right to both, but a right subject to the equal power of a trial court, in its discretion, to prescribe the manner in which a trial shall proceed.
We agree and find it intolerable that a defendant should be given the ability to disrupt a trial by competing with his own competent counsel, whenever he chooses. As the trial court observed in the case at bar, it sought to avoid turning the trial into a "roman circus." However, while we agree with the results of the above cited cases, we are hard put to explain what appears to be two perfectly plain English words "or both," however regrettable the result.
Accordingly, we are of the opinion that a defendant's motion filed Before trial, requesting permission to take part in his own defense should be granted, subject, however, to the continuing power of the trial judge to prescribe the manner in which the trial will later proceed, Thompson, supra. The spectacle of frequent interruption by the defendant, duplicating and/or countermanding his counsel or disrupting the proceedings should not be tolerated. Nevertheless, if a defendant At the outset wishes to participate personally and in an orderly manner, we feel he must in some fashion be permitted to do so subject to our stated limitations.
We recognize that this Opinion may appear to, in part, recede from our ruling in Powell, supra, but the Powell case was decided before the United States Supreme Court ruling in Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975) in which this latter court said:
The Sixth Amendment does not provide merely that a defense shall be made for the accused; it grants to the accused personally the right to make his defense. It is the accused, not counsel, who must be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation . . . . Although not stated in the amendment in so many words, the right to self-representation to make one's own defense personally is thus necessarily implied by the structure of the Amendment. " 1
From the above quoted excerpt, we are convinced that a defendant's personal right to participate is not satisfied merely because he has counsel, if he chooses to exercise that personal right, prior to the commencement of the trial. We are persuaded that his choice must be made prior to trial, by the additional language in Faretta, supra, indicating ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Raulerson v. Wainwright
...position and granted Raulerson permission to act as co-counsel, relying on the Florida appeals court's decision in Tait v. State, 362 So.2d 292 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1978). During the course of the hearing, the Florida Supreme Court overruled Tait, thereby striking down such "hybrid" representat......
-
State v. Tait
...This cause is before the Court on petition for certiorari to review the decision of the district court of appeal, Tait v. State, 362 So.2d 292 (Fla.4th DCA 1978). The respondent was convicted of murder in the second degree 1 and he appealed. The district court reversed and remanded for a ne......
-
Williams v. State
...43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975); Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 86 S.Ct. 836, 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966); Daniels v. O'Connor, supra; Tait v. State, 362 So.2d 292 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Before a competency hearing is required, evidence sufficient to raise a bona fide and reasonable doubt must be presented.......
-
Raulerson v. State
...to act as his own counsel. At the resentencing hearing, held on August 11 and 12, 1980, the trial court, relying upon Tait v. State, 362 So.2d 292 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), revisited its earlier ruling and allowed petitioner to act as co-counsel with Mr. Busch. Petitioner agreed to this. During ......