JOHNNY WILLIAMS, 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 court held that the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure regarding alibi witnesses and the size of the jury are constitutional and properly applied.
Defendant appealed his robbery conviction, challenging the constitutionality of the state's demand for alibi witness disclosure and the denial of a tw…
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.
This is defendant’s appeal from a conviction of robbery. His first point on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a protective order which he made in response to the State’s demand for disclosure of alibi witnesses pursuant to Rule 1.200, Florida Rules of Criminal Pro-’ cedure, 33 F.S.A.
Appellant argues that'the notice of alibi rule is a rule of substantive law, and accordingly is not authorized by Article 5, Section 3, of the Florida Constitution,1 F.S.A.
Appellant’s next point is that Rule 1.200, supra, violates his privilege against self-incrimination as provided by the Florida Declaration of Rights, Section 12, and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
We find no substantial merit in either of these two points on appeal.
Appellant’s third and last point raises the question of whether his constitutional rights were violated when the trial court denied his request for a trial by a jury of twelve instead .of six. The trial court ruled that the appellant was entitled, under Florida law, to a jury consisting of only six persons; the state contends that the trial court was correct in this ruling. We agree, and base our holding on the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 194, 88 S.Ct. 1444, 20 L.Ed.2d 491, 522 (1968).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 264 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)…owing that defendant knew of any requirement to furnish the witness list or that there had been any intention to trifle with the court or to entrap the state. The decision to exclude appears to have been based upon Williams v. Florida, Fla.App.1969, 224 So. 2d 406, affirmed (1970), 399 U.S. 78, 90 S.Ct. 1893, 26 L.Ed.2d 446. However, that case simply upholds mutual discovery against a claim of compulsory self incrimination. It does not determine the question as to whether defense witnesses can be excluded. T…
-
Grissom v. State, 237 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…remain inviolate forever.” By statute (§ 913.10(1), Fla.Stat., F.S.A.), provision is made for capital cases to be tried before a jury of twelve and “all other criminal cases” to be triable before a jury of six. See Williams v. State, Fla.App. 1969, 224 So. 2d 406; Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 194, 88 S.Ct. 1444, 20 L.Ed.2d 491, 522. The testimony of the psychiatrist which was offered was properly excluded. It would have presented as exculpatory a mental attitude of the defendant not adequate for defe…
-
Hamrick v. State, 235 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…s judgment of conviction on four counts of robbery after a jury trial. His claim that he was entitled to a twelve man jury for his trial in this matter is without merit. Hearns v. State, Fla.1969, 223 So. 2d 738 and Williams v. State, Fla.App.1969, 224 So. 2d 406. Appellant argues that the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of a witness concerning his identification. His argument on this point is divided into two parts. The first part is directed towards the alleged illegality of his arrest and th…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (U.S. 1968)
- In re Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 196 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 1967)