ROBERT HENRY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Robert Henry was convicted of first-degree murder and appealed on the ground that the jury verdict was defective because it included a mercy recommendation by only one juror. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that under statute section 2924, a mercy recommendation must come from a majority of the jury to qualify a capital conviction verdict, and a single juror's recommendation does not affect the guilty verdict.
The verdict was valid and legally sufficient. Under section 2924 of the Revised Statutes, a mercy recommendation must come from a majority of the jury to qualify a capital offense conviction; a recommendation by a single juror does not modify or qualify the guilty verdict and does not change the legal penalty for first-degree murder.
“in all cases the court shall award the sentence and shall fix the punishment or penalty prescribed by law”
Establishes that the court, not the jury's recommendation, determines the sentence in murder cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobert Henry was tried and convicted of murder in the first degree. The jury rendered a verdict stating: 'We, the jury, find the defendant guilty of m…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse First-Degree Murder Conviction cases and more on FLexlaw
Mabry, J.:
The plaintiff in error was convicted of murder in the first degree, and sued out writ of error from the sentence of the law to have the case reviewed in this court.
There are no assignments of error as to the admission or rejection of evidence, or as to the giving or re fusing to give instructions to the jury, and the only questions raised relate to the sufficiency of the verdict rendered by the jury and accepted by the court, and the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict. The following verdict was rendered and accepted by the court, viz: “We, the jury, find the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree, recommended to-the mercy of the court by one.
C. C. Hanford, foreman.” A ground of the motion for a new trial was-that the verdict was not in form of law, and did not legally evidence the intention of the jury in the case.
Section 2923 of the Revised Statutes provides that “in all criminal trials the jury, in addition to a verdict of' guilty of any offense, may recommend the accused, to the mercy of the court or to executive clemency, and such recommendation shall be entered of record, or filed if in writing, but shall not qualify the verdict except in capital cases. In all cases the court shall award the sentence and shall fix the punishment or penalty prescribed by law.” Section 2924 reads as-follows: “Whoever is convicted of a capital offense and recommended to the mercy of the court by a majority of the jury in their verdict shall be sentenced to imprisonment in the State prison for life, with or without solitary'confinement, at the discretion of the court.” So far as shown by the transcript of the proceedings in the trial court, and which must alone guide-us here, the sufficiency of the verdict must depend upon its terms as expressing the intention of the jury in their finding. The Circuit Judge evidently construed the verdict to be a unanimous finding of murder in the first degree, with a recommendation of mercy by one of the jury, and this we think is its true meaning. Under the second section of the statute quoted the added recommendation of mercy of less than a. majority of the jury will not qualify a verdict of conviction in capital cases, or change the penalty of the-law attaching to such conviction. There was no error, in our judgment, in the action of the trial court in accepting tile verdict as one of murder in the first degree without any qualification. We have carefully examined the evidence certified to us, and according to the established rule in this court the verdict should not be set aside as being contrary to the evidence.
The judgment will be affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Southworth v. State, 98 Fla. 1184 (Fla. 1929)…fy the verdict, unless such recommendation be therein made by a majority of the jury, Comp. Gen. Laws of Fla., Sec. 8401; Rev. Gen. Stats, of Fla., 6096. The verdict as rendered was a unanimous verdict of murder in the first degree. Henry v. State, 39 Fla. 233, 22 So. R. 652. One of the grounds of the motion for a new trial, was based upon newly discovered evidence and was supported by the affidavits of two men, who claimed to have come in contact with defendant and observed his actions and conduct on th…1 / 2
-
Whitney v. State, 132 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 1961)…and again the particular juror responded “that is my verdict.” Inasmuch as it is clear from the record that the juror in question agreed to the verdict that was submitted and filed, we find no error in this aspect of the proceeding. Henry v. State, 39 Fla. 233, 22 So. 2d 652; Stanton v. State, 148 Fla. 732, 5 So. 2d 4. [*603] There is a final contention to the effect that the appellant had previously been sentenced to life imprisonment for another homicide and that this earlier sentence precludes the exec…