GILBERT MILLER, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Miller appealed his conviction challenging an order quashing witness subpoenas for the public defender, claiming error in limiting discovery of witness names, and contesting the jury instruction on reasonable doubt. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, finding the subpoena order was correct but the discovery limitation and reasonable doubt instruction were harmless error.
The quashing of subpoenas was proper because the statute permitting the public defender to summon witnesses violated Article V, Section 3 of the Florida Constitution requiring court rules to govern procedure. The limitation on witness discovery and the reasonable doubt instruction were error but harmless; no prejudice resulted.
“The practice and procedure in all courts shall be governed by rules adopted by the Supreme Court.”
Constitutional basis for invalidating the statute permitting public defender to summon witnesses.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMiller was charged in the Sixth Circuit. The trial court quashed subpoenas the public defender sought to issue to witnesses. The defendant requested t…
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 Reasonable Doubt Jury Instruction cases and more on FLexlaw
The Circuit Court of the Sixth Circuit is said to have committed reversible error in this case. The point which gives this court jurisdiction arises out of an order quashing witness subpoenas returnable before the public defender. This order recited that so much of Chapter 61-2663 as permits the defender to summon witnesses to testify before'him is violative of Article V, Section 3 of our Constitution, F.S.A. That section reads simply: “The practice and procedure in all courts shall be governed by rules adopted by the Supreme Court.” The order of the circuit judge properly recognized that in this particular the special act governing the public defender’s office in the Sixth Circuit contravenes Article V, Section 3.
Appellant secondly contends that the circuit court erred when a motion was filed seeking to compel the prosecuting attorney to furnish to the defendant the names and addresses of the witnesses on whose testimony the information was based and the judge granted the motion “to the extent that defendant be provided a list of witnesses and their last known addresses, to be used at trial.” This was error, but harmless. On the face of the information, under the printed caption “Witnesses for the State” were typed the names of four persons, three of whom testified. Our present rules, which became effective before this case was tried, afford liberal means for discovery, and CrPR 1.220, 33 F.S.A. was utilized by this defendant. No prejudice resulted from the circuit judge’s *410erroneous limitation on the order granting the list of witnesses.
Thirdly, the judge before whom the trial was held is said to have charged the jury erroneously on reasonable doubt, failing to convey to them that such a doubt may arise from a lack of evidence. Simmons v. State, 1945, 156 Fla. 353, 22 So.2d 803, on which appellant relies, involved a charge that a “doubt which is not suggested by, or does not arise from the evidence is not a reasonable doubt, and should not be considered.” The charge given in this case avoided the error of suggesting that a doubt could not arise from the lack of evidence, although that possibility is implied rather than expressed directly, and is more nearly like the charges upheld in Vasquez v. State, 1907, 54 Fla. 127, 44 So. 739, and more recently in Cobb v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 214 So.2d 372.
The record being free from reversible error, the judgment must be affirmed.
ROBERTS, Acting C. J., DREW, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., and WILLIS, Circuit Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gonzalez v. State, 511 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…n which Gonzalez relies, the charge actually given below did not “affirmatively” state or suggest that a reasonable doubt could not arise from a lack of evidence. Hence, as was directly held in the subsequent and controlling case of Miller v. State, 225 So. 2d 409 (Fla.1969), the lack of evidence qualification was sufficiently implied by the general reasonable doubt instruction so as to render it unnecessary to give (and therefore harmless not to) an explicit charge to the same effect. Accord Vasquez v. State…
-
DeLAINE v. State, 230 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)…would be squarely presented. Therefore, we have withheld decision in the instant case for what may have seemed an inordinate lapse of time, awaiting the decisive opinion of the Supreme Court. That Court has now spoken in the case of Miller v. State, 225 So. 2d 409, opinion filed July 16, 1969, and has held that “so much of Chapter 61-2663 as permits the defender to summon witnesses to testify before him is violative of Article V, Section 3 of our Constitution”. This disposes of Point 1 adversely to defendant…
Authorities Cited
- Vasquez v. State, 54 Fla. 127 (Fla. 1907)
- Simmons v. State, 156 Fla. 353 (Fla. 1945)
- Cobb v. State, 214 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)