BYRON JONES, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a conviction despite a potentially improper jury instruction, finding no reversible error because the instruction did not indicate bias towards either party.
No, the trial court's instruction does not constitute reversible error because it does not indicate bias towards either party.
“There wouldn't be any point in having but one of you if somebody could just say, 'Well, it's this way, Boys, and you are going to go my way, or else.' When lunch time comes, we always send a Bailiff in with a bunch of hay to a fellow like that.”
This quote is the trial judge's statement to the jury that was the subject of the appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring jury deliberations, the trial judge made a statement comparing a stubborn juror to a mule or jackass, suggesting that such a juror would be giv…
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 Unanimous Verdict cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The question here which merits consideration is whether a portion of the trial court’s charge to the jury constitutes revers-able error. In instructing the jurors with reference to their deliberation, the trial judge stated: “There wouldn’t be any point in having but one of you if somebody could just say, ‘Well, it’s this way, Boys, and you are going to go my way, or else.’ When lunch time comes, we always send a Bailiff in with a bunch of hay to a fellow like that.” ^
This would infer that such a juror would “ be a stubborn mule or a jackass. Such a statement is anything but judicial. However, we fail to find any reversable error therein since there is no indication as to which party such stubbornness, if any, would be directed.
Judgment below is affirmed.
DREW, C. J., TERRELL, HOBSON, ROBERTS and THORNAL, JJ., and MORROW, Associate Justice, concur. TPIOMAS, J., agrees to the word “af-firmance”.
On Rehearing Granted
PER CURIAM.
On rehearing granted, we have concluded that the giving of the charge quoted in our former opinion denied to the appellant the fair and impartial trial guaranteed to him by Section 11 of the Declaration of Rights of our constitution, F.S.A. In this state, the verdict of the jury must be unanimous. The charge in question would, at least, create an embarrassing situation for any single juror whose honest conviction of the guilt or innocence of the accused is contrary to that of his fellow jurors and could very well deter him from asserting and arguing his views. Such an impediment to the exercise by a juror of a free and independent judgment is, in our opinion, inconsistent with the mandate of Section 11, supra.
Accordingly, we recede from our former opinion and hold that the judgment appealed from should be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
TERRELL, C. J., HOBSON, ROBERTS and THORNAL, JJ., and MORROW, Associate Justice, concur. THOMAS, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (21 total)
-
Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016)…of this Court’s holding in Jones v. State that “any interference with the right to a unanimous jury verdict denies the defendant a fair trial as guaranteed by the Declaration of Rights of the Florida Constitution.” Majority op. at 55 (citing Jones, 92 So. 2d 261, 261 (Fla.1956)). Given this State’s historical adherence to unanimity and the significance of the right to trial by jury, the majority correctly concludes that article I, section 22, of the Florida Constitution requires that all of the jury fact-fi…1 / 2
-
Linroy Bottoson v. Moore, 833 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 2002)…710] Of course, Florida has long required unanimous verdicts in all criminal cases including capital cases. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.440 states that no jury verdict may be rendered unless all jurors agree. Furthermore, in Jones v. State, 92 So. 2d 261 (Fla.1956), this Court held that any interference with the right to a unanimous verdict denies the defendant a fair trial. However, in Florida, the jury’s advisory recommendation in a capital case is not statutorily required to be by unanimous vote.…1 / 2
-
Thomas v. State, 748 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 1999)…at a trial court should not couch an instruction to a jury or otherwise act in any way that would appear to coerce any juror to reach a hasty decision or to abandon a conscientious belief in order to achieve a unanimous position. See Jones v. State, 92 So. 2d 261 (Fla.1956). In reviewing claims asserting violations of this important principle, the applicable standard of review is whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the trial judge’s actions were coercive. United States v. Brokemond, 959 F. 2d 2…
Previewing 3 of 21 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence