Williams v. State, M-176
| Decision Date | 30 July 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. M-176,M-176 |
| Parties | George WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard G. Weinberg, St. Augustine, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Roger W. Foote, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This is an appeal from a conviction of murder in the first degree with a recommendation of mercy, and of course from the order denying motion for new trial and arrest of judgment. This case arose in St. Johns County, Florida and tried before the Honorable Robert H. Wingfield, Judge.
The appellant filed a motion to quash the indictment before trial, based on several grounds. Among the material grounds for said motion, appellant pointed out that the grand jury which returned the indictment had been selected September 1, 1967 whereas the indictment was filed April 1968. The contention here was that the statute, F.S. Section 40.02, F.S.A. required the county commissioners of a county, except those having a jury commission, to hold a meeting during the first week of January of each year, Or as soon thereafter as practical, for the purpose of selecting jury lists. Because of a change in the statute relative to women serving as jurors, the Circuit Court of St. Johns County issued an order July 31, 1967, for the commissioners to compile a new jury list. This was done on September 1, 1967. The second Monday in November, 1967, a grand jury was selected to serve. The Clerk of Circuit Court testified that this grand jury 'carries over until the Spring term which is the first Monday in June' (1968). The indictment was in April 1968.
Our courts have held the statute requiring a January meeting of the county commissioners to be directory only 1 and the trial court was not in error in denying the motion on this point. Included in this same point, the appellant argues several defects in the form of the indictment which we find to be without merit; also the fact that each Commissioner selected a list of names from his district and submitted the same to the Board, which did in fact become the jury list adopted by the Board. This is not erroneous when the lists are submitted to the whole board, read out and an opportunity given each of the other Commissioners to object to any name thereon or to suggest a change. The final compilation of the jury list becomes the composite action of the Board.
As to point II in appellant's brief challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we believe, and so hold, that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to support the jury's findings and we will not attempt to substitute our judgment for that of the jury as to the facts.
Point three of appellant raises the propriety of the State Attorney inquiring into the felony convictions of the defendant. The law seems to be well-settled that a party testifying whether as a witness in his own behalf or otherwise, may be questioned about the number of his convictions of other crimes for the purpose of affecting his credibility. 2 The other questions propounded by the State Attorney as to his military discharge...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dupree v. State
...thus to explain, must be shown before the auxiliary evidence of such character can be introduced. Id., 9 So. at 841. In Williams v. State, 238 So.2d 137 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 241 So.2d 397 (Fla.1970), this court, in ruling that it was not error to preclude a defendant from introduci......
-
State v. Trafton
...with evidence of the defendant's unwillingness to take such a test. State v. Fox, 257 Iowa 174, 131 N.W.2d 684, 687 (1964); Williams v. State, 238 So.2d 137, 139, cert. denied, 241 So.2d 397 (Fla.D.C.A.1970); cf. State v. McDonough, Me., 350 A.2d 556, 562-63 (1976) (Not manifest error for S......
-
Chery v. State, 93-60
...any time during trial as apparently there were none to present. Ulloa v. State, 441 So.2d 169, 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Williams v. State, 238 So.2d 137, 139 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 241 So.2d 397 (Fla.1970); see also Diaz v. Rodriguez, 384 So.2d 906 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). (b) The trial co......
-
Peak v. State, 77-865
...and accordingly the evidence in question was properly excluded. Bailey v. State, 155 Fla. 597, 21 So.2d 217 (1945); Williams v. State, 238 So.2d 137 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970). See also State v. Coles, 91 So.2d 200 (Fla.1956). The defendant further complains that evidence obliquely tending to show......