ERNEST LEE GRISSOM, 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.
Ernest Lee Grissom was convicted by jury of second-degree murder for killing a student at a junior high school after being disciplined by a teacher. The Florida appellate court affirmed the conviction, rejecting arguments that a six-person jury was improper, that psychiatric evidence should have been admitted, and that the evidence was insufficient.
The court held that second-degree murder, being a noncapital offense, is properly triable before a six-person jury under Florida law; the psychiatrist's testimony was properly excluded because it would present a mental condition inadequate under the McNaughton Rule; and the evidence amply supported the jury's verdict.
[1] Second degree murder, a noncapital offense, is triable in Florida before a six-person jury.
[2] A psychiatrist's testimony is properly excluded if it presents a mental attitude inadequate for defense under the McNaughton Rule.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Second degree murder, a noncapital offense, is triable under the law of Florida before a six person jury.”
Establishes that Florida law permits six-person juries for non-capital offenses, rejecting appellant's argument for a twelve-person jury.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGrissom, a junior high school student, was detected violating school rules and sent to the principal's office along with other students. After being a…
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 Second Degree Murder cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant seeks reversal of a jury trial conviction of second degree murder, of which offense he was adjudged guilty and thereupon sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 20 years. Appellant contends first that the court erred in denying his request for a twelve person jury. Second, that the court erred in rejecting the testimony of a psychiatrist which was offered. Third, that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. On consideration of the record and briefs we find those contentions to be without merit.
Second degree murder, a noncapital offense, is triable under the law of Florida before a six person jury. Section 3 of the Declaration of Rights of the Florida Constitution, F.S.A. provides: “The right of trial by a jury shall be secured to all, and 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 defense under the McNaughton *58Rule. In the brief of the appellant it was recognized that exclusion of the evidence by the trial court was not incorrect if the McNaughton Rule is adhered to and applicable. The McNaughton Rule is in effect in Florida. See Campbell v. State, Fla. 1969, 227 So.2d 873, 877.
The jury’s verdict was amply supported by the evidence, which disclosed the following. The defendant, a student in a junior high school, together with certain other students, was detected by a teacher to be engaged in a rule violation within the school premises. He and the others were directed by the teacher to the office of the principal, who after admonishing them sent them home. On leaving, the appellant was heard to voice a threat to return and kill them “all.” A short time later he returned, armed with a hand gun, and fired two shots at and hitting the teacher who earlier had reported him to the principal. As he was departing after firing those shots, he fired a shot at and up a stairway of the building. That shot struck and killed one of the students who was on the stairs at the time the shot was fired.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Manuel v. State, 344 So. 2d 1317 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)…ing the killing. The court found these facts fur [*1320] nished more than a sufficient basis for a finding of the requisite depravity of mind. See Luke v. State, 204 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967). Another “strong” case is that of Grissom v. State, 237 So. 2d 57 (Fla.3d DCA 1970). In Grissom, the defendant, a junior high school student, was disciplined by a teacher for a rule violation. Upon being disciplined, the defendant threatened to return and kill the teacher. A short time later he did return armed wi…
-
Acey Walker v. State, 318 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…e varieties and species of cannabis, or “A rose by any other name would still be a rose.” Hence, we find the trial judge did not commit reversible error in excluding testimony of the polytypic nature of cannabis. Cf. Grissom v. State, Fla.App.1970, 237 So. 2d 57. For the reasons cited thereinabove, the judgment is affirmed. Affirmed. . “893.02 Definitions The following words and phrases as used in this chapter shall have the following meanings, unless the context otherwise requires: ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ “ (2) ‘Can…
-
Readon v. State, 755 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. K.B. v. State, 594 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); see Evans v. State, 452 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Grissom v. State, 237 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970).…
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)
- Campbell v. State, 227 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 1969)
- Williams v. State, 224 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)