COMPTON SHULTZ
v.
STATE
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 court reversed a conviction for breaking and entering because the defendant was allegedly brought to trial in convict garb and chains, and the circumstantial evidence was insufficient. This case highlights the importance of the presumption of innocence and proper trial procedures.
Yes, presenting a defendant in convict garb and chains can be grounds for reversal, and the circumstantial evidence presented was insufficient to satisfy the legal standard for conviction.
“It is therefore, highly improper to bring a person who has not been convicted of crime, clothed as a convict and bound in chains, into the presence of a venire or jury by whom he is to be tried for any criminal offense and when such condition is shown by the record to have obtained in many cases it might be sufficient ground for a reversal.”
Establishes the impropriety of presenting an unconvicted defendant in chains and convict garb to the jury.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was arraigned and required to plead to an information while allegedly dressed in convict garb and chains in the presence of the jury ven…
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 Due Process In Criminal Trials cases and more on FLexlaw
The writ of error in this case brings for review judgment of conviction of the offense of breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor.
A motion for continuance alleges that the accused was brought into open court dressed in the garb of a convict and in chains and, in such condition in the presence of the venire from which to be drawn a jury to serve in his trial, was arraigned and required to plead to the information filed against him.
Motions, though sworn to, are not self-proving, and there is nothing else in the record to show that this condition existed.
Every person is presumed to be innocent of the commission of crime and that presumption follows them through every stage of the trial until they shall have been convicted. It is therefore, highly improper to bring a person who has not been convicted of crime, clothed as a convict and bound in chains, into the presence of a venire or jury by whom he is to be tried for any criminal offense and when such condition is shown by the record to have obtained in many cases it might be sufficient ground for a reversal.
In this case the State relied upon circumstantial evidence for conviction and, without going into the evidence in detail, it is sufficient to say that the record fails to disclose evidence sufficient to satisfy the rule in such cases. In such cases the rule is:
“If the facts in proof are equally consistent with some other rational conclusion than that of guilty, or if the evidence leaves it indifferent which of several hypotheses is true, or merely establishes some finite probability in favor *759of one hypothesis rather than another, such evidence cannot amount to proof, however great the probability may be. Parish v. State, 98 Fla. 877, 124 So. 444; Gustine v. State, 86 Fla. 24, 97 So. 207.”
See also Lee v. State, 96 Fla. 59, 117 So. 699.
For the reason stated, the judgment must be reversed and it is so ordered.
Reversed.
Eixis, C. J., and Terrell, J., concur.
Whitfield, P. J., and Chapman, J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Brown, J., concurs in the conclusion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. State, 465 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1985)…nt argues that this improperly conveyed to the prospective jurors that the bailiffs regarded appellant as dangerous or a security risk. Appellant relies on Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 96 S.Ct. 1691, 48 L.Ed.2d 126 (1976), and Shultz v. State, 131 Fla. 757, 179 So. 764 (1938). Upon the making of the motion for mistrial, the judge held a hearing in chambers to inquire into the circumstances of the handcuffing. The bailiffs told the court that the handcuffing was done not in the courtroom but outside th…
-
McCOY v. State, 175 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)…bringing them to and from a courtroom. Under the circumstances the trial judge did not abuse' his discretion in refusing to declare a mistrial. 14 Am.Jur., Criminal Law, § 132; 23 C.J.S. Criminal Law, § 977. Compare dictum in Shultz v. State, 1938, 131 Fla. 757, 179 So. 764 (where it was alleged that the accused was brought into open court dressed in the garb of a convict and in chains and was required [*592] to plead to the information in the presence of the venire from which his jury was to be drawn). S…
-
Atkins v. State, 210 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)…reversible error as a matter of law. I can hardly conceive of any action of a trial court that would so strongly infringe upon that most fundamental right — the presumption of innocence. The views of the Supreme Court of Florida in Shultz v. State, 131 Fla. 757, 179 So. 764 (1938), as quoted in the majority opinion, strictly considered, probably amount to obiter dictum, as the majority says, because there the judgment appealed from was reversed on other grounds; but I .think that those clearly-expressed vi…1 / 3
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gustine v. State, 86 Fla. 24 (Fla. 1923)
- Lee v. State, 96 Fla. 59 (Fla. 1928)
- James Parish v. State, 98 Fla. 877 (Fla. 1929)