JOE DUNAWAY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
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.
Joe Dunaway was convicted of second-degree murder in the killing of Sebastian Sanders at a birthday party in 1924. The Florida Supreme Court rejected Dunaway's multiple grounds for reversal, holding that any trial irregularities did not deprive him of material rights and that sufficient evidence supported the conviction.
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that none of the asserted grounds for reversal warrant reversal. The juror challenge caused no harm to the defendant, other matters fell within the trial court's discretion, and any irregularities in the trial did not deprive the defendant of material rights or prejudice his case.
“As a matter of right defendant was entitled to no particular jury or jurors to try his case; he was entitled to a fair and impartial jury”
Establishes the legal standard for jury composition and rejects the defendant's challenge to the juror removal process.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn June 1, 1924, Dunaway and Sanders, who were brothers-in-law, attended a birthday party at Dan Wilson's home along with approximately ten to twelve …
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 Impartial Jury cases and more on FLexlaw
Terrell, J.
Joe Dunaway was indicted and tried in the Circuit Court of Escambia County for murder in the first degree. He was convicted of murder in the second degree, sentenced to thirty years at hard labor in the State Prison and now comes here by writ of error seeking to have judgment and sentence reversed.
Reversal is predicated on the following-grounds': (1) Allowance of challenge of a juror by the State after the panel had been tendered and' accepted.' (2) Method of examining’ the witnesses, Polly Mitchell and Fannie Collins, on the part of the State, such method tending to impute lack of chastity to said witnesses. (3) Permitting cross examination of defendant’s witnesses by'two counsel over the same points and as to matters not in cross of anything brought out in the direct examination. (4) Refusal of the trial court to allow defendant a few minutes to secure the attendance of the witness Mrs. Zack Reader. The challenge complained of was made prior to the swearing of the jury in chief and it is nowhere made to appear that any .harm resulted to the defendant therefrom or that any right of his was prejudiced thereby. As a matter of right defendant was entitled to no particular jury or jurors to try his case; he was entitled to a fair and impartial jury and it is not claimed or intimated that the jury finally selected and sworn and by whom defendant was tried was not all that the law required. Ammons v. State, 65 Fla. 166, 61 So. 496; Young v. State, 85' Fla. 348, 96 So. 381; Washington et al. v. State, 86 Fla. 533, 98 So. 605.
The record shows that Joe Dunaway, the plaintiff in error, and Sebastian Sanders, the deceased, with some ten or twelve others met at the home of Dan Wilson on June 1, 1924, where they participated in the festivities of a. birthday party. It appears that all the participants met. there as friends, that all were drunk or drinking throughout the day, and all were related by blood or marriage, defendant and deceased having married sisters. The day was spent fiddling and dancing and indulging the usual diversions incident to such occasions where “shinny” is liberally dispensed. The concluding scene of the final act of the drama was the killing of Sebastian Sanders which took place in one room of the dwelling of Wilson late in the afternoon. While there is slight evidence of bad blood between defendant and deceased no convincing motive is shown for the killing. It was apparently not precipitated by words or blows and we are unable to say what provoked it. Stella Sanders, the wife of the deceased, was present at the killing and swore that Joe Dunaway did it. Supporting testimony also points to his guilt.
In this state of the record other asserted grounds of reversal embraced matters entirely within the discretion of the trial court to be disposed of in the light of the law arising from the facts developed in the progress of the trial. We have studied the whole record carefully and while it appears that the trial may have been in some respects irregular under all the circumstances we fail to see where such irregularities deprive the defendant" of any material right or prejudiced his case in any particular. The testimony is entirely contradictory, yet there is evidence on which reasonable men could support the elements of murder in the second degree. We find no error in the record that would warrant a reversal of the judgment below, so it is affirmed.
West, C. J., and Whitfield, Eixis, Strum and Brown, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Leavine v. State, 109 Fla. 447 (Fla. 1933)…est of a proper administration of justice and it does not appear that the discretion was abused nor that the accused suffered the slightest practical harm. State v. Lundgren, 124 Minn. 162, 144 N. W. Rep. 752, Ann. Cas. 1915 B 377; Dunaway v. State, 90 Fla. 142, 105 Sou. Rep. 816; Barney v. State, 49 Neb. 515, 68 N. W. Rep. 636. The first assignment of error is not sustained. The second and third assignments of error are abandoned. Victor Palmer, one of the defendants named in the indictment, was called…
-
Broxson v. State, 99 Fla. 1187 (Fla. 1930)…disturb a verdict supported by evidence where its propriety depends on the weight of circumstantial evidence or the credibility of witnesses. Caldwell v. State, 50 Fla. 4, 39 So. R. 188; Dickens v. State, 50 Fla. 17, 38 So. R. 909; Dunaway v. State, 90 Fla. 142, 105 So. R. 816; May v. State, 89 Fla. 78, 103 So R. 115. There being no error the cause should be affirmed. [*1194] Per Curiam. The record in this canse having been considered by the Court, and the foregoing opinion prepared under Chapter 14553,…
-
Ike Gaston v. State, 134 Fla. 538 (Fla. 1938)…us. It has been held that this court will not disturb a verdict supported by evidence where its propriety depends on the weight of circumstantial evidence or the credibility of witnesses. See May v. State, 89 Fla. 78, 103 So. 115; Dunaway v. State, 90 Fla. 142, 105 So. 816; Dickens v. State, 50 Fla. 17, 38 So. 909. The third question for decision is: Did the court err in refusing to strike out the following statement of the State Attorney made while addressing the jury during the progress of the trial of…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Young v. State, 85 Fla. 348 (Fla. 1923)
- Washington v. State, 86 Fla. 533 (Fla. 1923)
- Reed v. Mendel Cromer, 86 Fla. 575 (Fla. 1923)
- Ammons v. State, 65 Fla. 166 (Fla. 1913)