Taylor v. State, 85-564
| Decision Date | 16 January 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-564,85-564 |
| Citation | 481 So.2d 970,11 Fla. L. Weekly 211 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 211 Danny Michael TAYLOR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Kenneth Witts, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Richard B. Martell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.
This case involves the question of whether a trial judge may permit a jury to separate and go home overnight after it has commenced deliberation in a non-capital case.
When it became apparent to the trial judge that the jury deliberating an attempted robbery case would be unable to reach a verdict during the evening, the trial judge announced that he would allow the jury to separate and go home overnight. Counsel for the defendant objected. The trial court gave the jury a cautionary instruction not to discuss the case with anyone and not to form or fix any opinion about the outcome of the case until jury deliberations were concluded and then dismissed the jury to reconvene and continue its deliberations the next morning. There is no suggestion of any outside influence on the jury or of any jury impropriety. The defendant appeals, claiming the trial court erred.
In the absence of a definitive supreme court case or rule of procedure, we follow Engle v. State, 438 So.2d 803 (Fla.1983), cert. denied, Engle v. Florida, 465 U.S. 1074, 104 S.Ct. 1430, 79 L.Ed.2d 75 (1984), and Franklin v. State, 472 So.2d 1303 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), and hold that it is not reversible error as a matter of law for a trial judge to permit a jury to separate overnight during its deliberations in a non-capital case. Compare Livingston v. State, 458 So.2d 235 (Fla.1984), and Raines v. State, 65 So.2d 558 (Fla.1953).
Pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(a)(2)(A)(v) we certify the following question to be of great public importance:
After submission of the cause to the jury for deliberations in the trial of a non-capital case, is it reversible error per se for a trial court to authorize the jury to separate overnight, or for some other definite time fixed by the court, and then reassemble and continue its consideration of a verdict?
AFFIRMED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ulloa v. State
...different from rules, like Livingston, designed to insure the integrity of the fact-finding process. See Taylor v. State, 481 So.2d 970 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (Dauksch, J., dissenting) (the principle of Livingston should not be affected by degree of punishment; the rule should apply to non-cap......
-
Busquet v. State, 85-1169
...1373, 1375 n. 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), and now so hold. We recognize that the Fifth District has held to the contrary in Taylor v. State, 481 So.2d 970 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), but decline to follow that decision. We reach this result for the following three First, Judge Dauksch, in our view, is e......
-
Fowler v. State, 85-889
...State, 438 So.2d 803 (Fla.1983), cert. denied, Engle v. Florida, 465 U.S. 1074, 104 S.Ct. 1430, 79 L.Ed.2d 753 (1984); Taylor v. State, 481 So.2d 970 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Franklin v. State, 472 So.2d 1303 (Fla. 1st DCA UPCHURCH and COWART, JJ., concur. DAUKSCH, J., concurs specially with op......
-
Taylor v. State
...to article V, section 3(b)(4), of the Florida Constitution, petitioner Danny Taylor seeks review of the decision below, Taylor v. State, 481 So.2d 970 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), affirming his conviction of attempted robbery. The district court of appeal certified the following question as one of ......