JAMES MORGAN, 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.
James Morgan was convicted of grand larceny (lesser included offense of robbery) by a six-member jury in Florida and sentenced to five years imprisonment. On appeal, Morgan challenged whether trial by a jury of fewer than twelve members violated his federal constitutional right to a jury trial, arguing that Duncan v. Louisiana logically required states to provide twelve-member juries. The appellate court rejected this argument and affirmed the conviction.
The court held that trial by a six-member jury does not violate a defendant's federal constitutional rights. Duncan v. Louisiana, which required states to provide jury trials for serious crimes, did not mandate that such trials be conducted by twelve-member juries, and the Supreme Court has not applied the twelve-member jury requirement to the states.
“Is it a violation of a criminal defendant's federal constitutional right to a jury trial * * to try said defendant for the crime of robbery with the jury composed of less than twelve people ?”
States the precise legal question presented on appeal regarding jury composition and constitutional rights.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMorgan was charged with robbery and pleaded not guilty. On October 16, 1968, he was tried by a six-member jury, which found him guilty of the lesser o…
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 Serious Vs. Petty Offenses cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was charged by information with robbery. He entered a plea of not guilty, and on October 16, 1968, was tried by a jury composed of six members. The jury found the appellant guilty of the lesser offense of grand larceny. The court adjudicated him convicted and sentenced him to five years in the state penitentiary.
This appeal presents a single point. “Is it a violation of a criminal defendant’s federal constitutional right to a jury trial * * to try said defendant for the crime of robbery with the jury composed of less than twelve people ? ” The point presented was properly raised by timely motions and preserved by appropriate objections below.
Appellant’s position is not that the federal courts have held that the federal constitutional right to be tried by a 12-man jury is applicable to the states. His argument is that such a holding is logically required by the fact that the United States Supreme Court has held that a jury in a federal criminal trial must be composed of 12 members and that it has recently held in Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 194, 88 S.Ct. 1444, 20 L.Ed.2d 491, 522 (1968), that a misdemeanor punishable by two years in prison is a serious crime, not a petty offense, and that consequently the appellant there was entitled to a jury trial in a state court.1
We are not persuaded by the appellant’s argument. The provision for a six man jury in all criminal cases except capital cases was first held constitutional by the Supreme Court of Florida in 1877. Gibson v. State, 16 Fla. 291, 300 (1877). See Williams v. State, Fla.App.1969, 224 So.2d 406.* The court in Duncan did not hold that the appellant was entitled to a trial by a 12 member jury. See discussion concerning Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581, 20 S.Ct. 448, 44 L.Ed. 597, 598 (1900), in Duncan, 391 U.S. at 154-155, 88 S.Ct. 1444, 20 L.Ed.2d at 499. Moreover, in his concurring opinion Mr. Justice Fortas stated: “I see no reason whatever * * * to assume that our decision today should require us *802to impose federal requirements such as * * * a jury of 12 upon the States,” 391 U.S. at 213, 88 S.Ct. at 1459, 20 L.Ed. 2d at 535.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Moffett v. State, 227 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…ned and found to be either moot [as to the pre-trial discovery matters] because of the above and foregoing, or without merit [as to the right to a twelve-man jury]. See: Williams v. State, Fla.App.1969, 224 So. 2d 406; Morgan v. State, Fla.App.1969, 223 So. 2d 801; Hearns v. State, Fla.1969, 223 So. 2d 738. This opinion is not to be construed as preventing the State from filing any other charges .against the appellant that might be justified under the circumstances. Reversed and remanded, with directions to…
Authorities Cited
- Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (U.S. 1968)
- DeSTEFANO v. Woods, 392 U.S. 631 (U.S. 1968)
- Maxwell v. DOW, 176 U.S. 581 (U.S. 1900)
- Gibson v. State, 16 Fla. 291 (Fla. 1877)
- Williams v. State, 224 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)