White v. State
Decision Date | 06 November 1937 |
Citation | 129 Fla. 885,176 So. 842 |
Parties | WHITE v. STATE. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Court of Record, Escambia County; C. M. Jones, Judge.
Jack White was convicted of manslaughter, and he brings error.
Reversed and remanded.
F. Churchill Mellen, of Pensacola, for plaintiff in error.
Cary D Landis, Atty. Gen., and Roy Campbell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The writ of error brings for review judgment of conviction of manslaughter had under an information in two counts. The conviction was under the first count which charged that the defendant 'on the 18th day of August in the Year of Our Lord One Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty-five at and in the County of Escambia aforesaid, being then and there intoxicated, did then and there, while so intoxicated feloniously drive and operate a motor vehicle, to-wit: an automobile, over and upon a public highway in Escambia County, Florida, to-wit: that certain public highway commonly known as the Pensacola-Flomaton Highway, and by the operation of the said motor vehicle, to-wit: an automobile, did then and there operate and drive the same into and against the body of one Clinton McCloud, on and near said highway, and by reason of same did strike, wound and injure the said Clinton McCloud, and by thus striking the said Clinton McLoud, did inflict in and upon his head, body and limbs, mortal wounds, from which mortal wounds, the said Clinton McCloud did then and there languish, and thence continue to languish, until on the 19th day of August, A.D 1935, the said Clinton McCloud, a human being, did then and there die.'
Plaintiff in error presents six questions.
The first question challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict.
The second and third questions are based upon the showing in the record that a juror being examined on his voir dire stated in answer to a question by defendant's counsel that he had never been represented by either of the attorneys representing the state, when in truth and in fact he had been represented by one of such attorneys in a matter of considerable consequence to the juror, and that during the progress of the trial when the court was in recess this juror and the attorney who had represented him as his counsel in the matter referred to had discussed the matter as to which such attorney represented such juror.
The fourth question challenges the refusal of the trial court to give a certain charge requested by the defendant.
The fifth question challenges the action of the court in refusing to direct a verdict in favor of the defendant on the second count of the information.
The sixth question challenges the action of the court in refusing to require the state to elect on which count of the information it would proceed in the trial.
The first question must be answered in the negative, as there was sufficient substantial evidence, if believed by the jury, to sustain the verdict.
The charge requested by the defendant and referred to in the fourth question was not warranted under the facts of the case and, therefore, was properly refused.
The fifth question presents a matter which is immaterial because the jury, in effect, acquitted the defendant on the second count of the information.
The contention presented by the sixth question concerned a matter as to which the court was authorized to exercise sound judicial discretion, and it has not been made to appear that there was an abuse of that discretion so as to require a reversal of the cause.
As to the contentions presented by the second and third questions above referred to, we feel that they must be resolved in favor of the plaintiff in error. It is not so much what the effect of the irregularity may have been in this particular case as it is what the effect of such conduct might be which arrests our consideration in this regard.
Either party to a suit which is to be tried before a jury has the right to know whether or not any individual who may be chosen to serve on the jury is, or has been, represented by one of the attorneys employed in the case on trial. The relationship of attorney and client is a close and confidential one. The creation of that relationship is evidence of peculiar confidence existing in the mind and conscience of the client toward the attorney chosen by him to represent him, and communications between the attorney and client are privileged communications, so that the client may repose utmost confidence in his attorney.
It therefore, follows that when the attorney for one of the parties to a suit asks a proposed juror who is being examined upon his voir dire whether or not he is or has been represented by either of the attorneys appearing in the case, he is entitled to have a full, frank and truthful answer. If the venireman...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Palmer v. State
...to the jury should relate to and be confined to issues concerning evidence which has been received at trial. White v. State, 129 Fla. 885, 176 So. 842 (1937); Bradley v. State, 82 Fla. 108, 89 So. 359 (1921); Gadsden v. State, 77 Fla. 627, 82 So. 50 (1919); State v. Brown, 118 So.2d 574, 58......
-
North v. State
...upon by the appellant, including, Owens v. State, 68 Fla. 154, 67 So. 39; Seekers v. State, 253 Ala. 420, 44 So.2d 633; White v. State, 129 Fla. 885, 176 So. 842, reveals that they are not in point. The case of State ex rel. Larkins v. Lewis, Fla., 54 So.2d 199, 200, is emphasized by appell......
-
NICHOLAS v. State of Fla.
...been represented by the state attorney, the supreme court held that the defendant was entitled to a new trial. White v. State, 129 Fla. 885, 176 So. 842, 844-45 (1937). The prior representation of the juror by the attorney responsible for prosecuting the defendant was obviously relevant and......
-
Williams v. State
...develop the record made it impossible to determine the true extent of the juror's knowledge and possible bias. See White v. State, 129 Fla. 885, 176 So. 842 (1937), Thompson v. State, 300 So.2d 301 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); Mitchell v. State, 458 So.2d 819 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Sanders v. State, 7......