LAWRENCE RUSSELL, 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.
Russell was convicted of grand larceny and appealed on the ground that the trial court ordered the jury brought into court in his absence. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that merely directing the jury to be brought into court without requesting or receiving the verdict in the defendant's absence was harmless error, as the verdict was actually tendered and received only after the defendant was present in court.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed. Merely ordering the jury to be brought into court in the defendant's absence, when the actual tendering and receipt of the verdict occurred only after the defendant was present and the jury was polled in open court, constitutes harmless error.
“In ordering the jury brought into court in the absence of the defendant the court took no steps in the cause that required the presence of the defendant.”
Establishes the court's distinction between procedural orders and substantive steps requiring defendant presence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRussell was arraigned in open court and pleaded not guilty to grand larceny. The trial was completed the same day. After the jury was charged and reti…
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 Grand Larceny cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield,
J.—Russell was convicted of the felony of grand larceny and took writ of error. The only contention here is that during the absence of the defendant in jail the court ordered the jury brought into court, and the jury returned into court with a verdict. It is not contended that the verdict was tendered by the jury or received by the court in the absence of the defendant. It appears from the record that the defendant was arraigned in open court and entered a plea of not guilty. The trial was had and completed the same day. After the jury had been charged by the court and retired to consider their verdict, the court adjourned to 3 P. M, On reconvening the court at 3 P. M. the Sheriff notified -the court that the jury was ready to-come into court. The court ordered the jury to be brought into court and the jury came into court, the defendant not being present. The court then ordered the defendant to be brought into court. The defendant being in court the jury were asked if they had agreed on a verdict, and they having answered in the affirmative, returned the verdict.
In ordering the jury brought into court in the absence of the defendant the court took no steps in the cause that required the presence of the defendant. See Colson v. State, 51 Fla. 19, 40 South. Rep. 183; Blocker v. State, 60 Fla. 4, 53 South. Rep. 715. The verdict was not asked for, or tendered or rendered in the absence of the defendant. It affirmatively appears that the defendant was present when the jury were asked if they had agreed on a verdict and when the verdict was received by the court; and on being polled in open court each juror stated the verdict rendered was his verdict. If the order merely directing the jury to be brought into court during the absence of the defendant was erroneous, it was clearly harmless to the defendant.
The judgment is affirmed.
Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Cockrell and Hock-er, J. J.; concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lowman v. State, 80 Fla. 18 (Fla. 1920)…ound for á reversal or for a new trial. State v. Rubaka, 82 Conn. 59, 72 Atl. Rep. 566; 16 C. J. 818 and notes. See also State v. Gonce, 87 Mo. 627; S R. C. L. 91; Diax v. United States, 223 U. S. 442; 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 250. See also Russel v. State, 65 Fla. 312, 61 South. Rep. 624; Hite v. Commonwealth, 14 Ky. Law 308, 20 S. W. Rep. 217; Meece v. Commonwealth, 78 Ky. 586; Howard v. State of Kentucky, 200 U. S. 164, text 175, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 189; Frank v. Mangum, 237 U. S. 309 85 Sup. Ct. Rep. 582; State v…
Authorities Cited
- Colson v. State, 51 Fla. 19 (Fla. 1906)
- Blocker v. State, 60 Fla. 4 (Fla. 1910)