MARVIN DAVIS, AND JOHN YOUNGUE, PLAINTIFFS 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.
This case reviews the denial of a motion for a new trial for Marvin Davis and John Youngue, who were convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony and grand larceny. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding no error in the jury selection process.
No, the trial court did not err. The defendants are entitled to a fair and impartial jury, but not a specific one, and they failed to demonstrate prejudice in the jury selection process.
“This court has repeatedly held that one charged with crime is entitled to a fair and impartial jury to try his cause, but that he is not entitled to any particular jury or juror to do this.”
Establishes the legal standard for jury impartiality.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMarvin Davis and John Youngue were convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony and grand larceny. They appealed, arguing that th…
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 Breaking And Entering With Intent To Commit A Felony cases and more on FLexlaw
Terrell, J.-
Marvin Davis and John Youngue were informed against in the Criminal Court of Record of Duval County, January 23, 1925, for breaking and entering a building with intent to commit a felony and grand larceny. They were convicted as 'charged in the information. Marvin Davis was sentenced to confinement in the State penitentiary at hard labor for a term of nine years, and John Youngue was sentenced to confinement in the State penitentiary at hard labor for a term of five years. Motion for new trial was denied and writ of error taken to this court.
The first assignment of error challenges the refusal of the trial court to excuse for cause the jurors, J. C. Dupree, E. T. Wooly, C. P. Tanner and L. M. Wilsey. The ground of challenge For canse was that these jurors had on the previous day at the same term sat in the trial of and had convicted Marvin Davis, Walter Davis, Clinton H. Peeler and George Jacobs for breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor and petit' larceny.
This court has repeatedly held that one charged with crime is entitled to a fair and impartial jury to try his cause, but that he is not entitled to any particular jury or juror to do this. It is not charged that defendant did not have a fair and impartial jury, and the record discloses that the jury which tried the defendants was different from the one which tried the case of Davis v. State, on the previous day. The record does not show that the defendants exhausted their peremptory challenges on any person or persons offered as jurors, or that any right of theirs was prejudiced, nor is error made to appear in connection with the selection of the jury. Stokes v. State, 54 Fla. 109, 44 South. Rep. 749; Young v. State 85, 348, 96 So. 381.
All other assignments of error have been examined carefully, and the questions presented by them have been fully covered in Davis v. State, decided this term, so a discussion of them would serve no useful purpose.
The judgment below is therefore affirmed.
West, C. J., and Whitfield, Elias, Strum and Brown, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
North v. State, 65 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 1953)…ial Judge has a broad discretion in excusing prospective jurors for reasons personal to such persons. A defendant in a criminal case is not entitled to any particular juror or jury. Mathis v. State, 45 Fla. 46, 34 So. 287; Davis & Youngue v. State, 90 Fla. 322, 105 So. 845; 14 Am.Jur. 902; Criminal Law, Sec. 194; Maxwell v. State, 89 Ala. 150, 7 So. 824; Parker v. State, 201 Miss. 579, 29 So. 2d 910. The appellant places great reliance upon Sec. 914.01(3), F.S.A., which provides that in all prosecutions…
-
Stoutamire v. State, 133 Fla. 757 (Fla. 1938)…a. 117, 101 So. 205: “It was not necessary for the officer to warn the defendant that what he might say could be used against him, as the statement was not made in court. See McDonald v. State, 70 Fla. 250, 70 So. 24.” The cases of Davis v. State, 90 Fla. 322, 105 So. 843, and Nickels v. State, 90 Fla. 659, 106 So. 479, cited by plaintiffs in error, do not appear to be in point, as the accused was previously warned in both of these cases and it was unnecessary to decide this question. Plaintiffs in erro…
-
Blackwell v. State, 132 So. 468 (Fla. 1931)…ceased, for whose murder the defendant was about to be tried, the trial judge was well within his discretion in excusing the venireman in question. Melbourne v. State, 51 Fla. 69, 40 So. 189; Ammons v. State, 65 Fla. 166, 61 So. 496; Davis v. State, 90 Fla. 322, 105 So. 845. The defendant also assigns as error the giving of certain special charges requested by the State. We have examined all these charges and find no harmful error. Only one of the questioned charges requires comment. It is the following p…
Authorities Cited
- Young v. State, 85 Fla. 348 (Fla. 1923)
- Stokes v. State, 54 Fla. 109 (Fla. 1907)