CHARLES E. SMITH, AS MUNICIPAL JUDGE OF THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE CITY OF VERO BEACH, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
ROBERT ROSS DAVIS, RESPONDENT
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 held that a person charged with violating a municipal ordinance for driving under the influence is not entitled to a trial by jury, reversing the district court's affirmative answer to that question.
A person charged with driving under the influence as a violation of a municipal ordinance is not entitled to a trial by jury.
[1] A person charged with violating a municipal ordinance prohibiting driving under the influence is not entitled to a trial by jury.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavis was charged with driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor to the extent that his normal faculties were impaired,…
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 Municipal Ordinance Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is here for review on a Petition for Certiorari accompanied by a certificate of the District Court that the decision1 is one which passes on a question of great public interest.2
The sole question argued here and the one certified here by the district court is:
“Is a person charged with driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor to the extent that his normal faculties were impaired, as a violation of a municipal ordinance, entitled to a trial by jury for such violation.”
The district court answered this question in the affirmative. Judge Reed, in an able dissenting opinion reached a contrary result.3 We are of the view that Judge Reed correctly decided the question presented to that court and the question certified here. Moreover we are in complete accord with the reasons pronounced by him in reaching the conclusion he did. We, therefore, adopt his opinion as the decision of this Court.
The questioned decision is quashed and the cause remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent herewith.
ROBERTS and CARLTON, JJ„ and SCHULZ, Circuit Judge, concur.
ERVIN, C. J., dissents with opinion:
(dissenting).
I am unable to agree to the foregoing opinion not only for the reasons expressed in the District Court majority opinion (227 So.2d 342), but for my views expressed in special opinions and dissents in earlier cases decided here on the subject of constitutional guarantees applicable in municipal cases of the seriousness of the one here involved. See, for example, my concurring opinion in City of Fort Lauderdale v. King, 222 So.2d 6, page 9.
ERVIN, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
I am unable to agree to the foregoing opinion not only for the reasons expressed in the District Court majority opinion (227 So. 2d 342), but for my views expressed in special opinions and dissents in earlier cases decided here on the subject of constitutional guarantees applicable in municipal cases of the seriousness of the one here involved. See, for example, my concurring opinion in City of Fort Lauderdale v. King, 222 So. 2d 6, page 9.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
State v. McDONALD, 357 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 1978)…ent that the subject of the law be briefly stated in the title does not require a detailed explanation of every provision, but requires only that the matter under consideration be fairly related to the subject described in the title. Smith v. Davis, 231 So. 2d 517 (Fla.1970).1 We determine that Section 318.14(3), Florida Statutes (1975) is sufficiently related to the general subject matter of this act, which provides for the establishment of procedures for the adjudication of traffic infractions. Further, th…
-
de Jong v. Pallotto, 239 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 1970)…urt, said municipality will either set up the proper procedure to provide a trial by jury or transfer said cause to a court of competent jurisdiction in the county said municipality is located.” [*254] Prior to the amendment and when Smith v. Davis, 231 So. 2d 517 (Fla.1970), was rendered, the statute provided: “(4) Any person charged with driving while under the influence of alcoholic beverages to the extent that his normal faculties were impaired shall be entitled to trial by jury according to the Florida…1 / 2
-
Walker v. Hampton, 235 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)…2d 520 (Fla.App.1968), cert. discharged Hilliard v. City of Gainesville, 213 So. 2d 689 (Fla.1968), appeal dismissed 393 U.S. 321, 89 S.Ct. 556, 21 L.Ed.2d 517 (1969), rehearing denied 393 U.S. 1112, 89 S.Ct. 858, 21 L.Ed.2d 814, and Smith v. Davis, 231 So. 2d 517 (Fla.1970). The sole thrust of appellant’s contention rests on the opinion of the court [*326] in Davis v. Smith, 227 So. 2d 342 (Fla.App.1969). That decision was reversed in Smith v. Davis, supra, which was decided subsequent to the filing of the…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Davis v. Smith, 227 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)
- City OF Fort Lauderdale v. King, 222 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 1969)