STANLEY A. HEADRICK, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE; WILLIAM T. MIMS, 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.
The court held that the trial judge did not err in restricting voir dire examination of prospective jurors.
Appellants were charged with breaking and entering a store with intent to commit grand larceny and were found guilty by a jury. They appealed, arguing…
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 Juror Qualification cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants Stanley A. Headrick and William T. Mims have taken separate appeals to this Court from the individual judgments and sentences entered against them. The two appeals have been heretofore consolidated in this Court for purpose of disposition.
Headrick and Mims were jointly charged by information filed in the Pinellas County Circuit Court with the offense of breaking and entering a store building known as Baldwin Jewelry Shop located at Indian Rocks Beach, with intent to commit grand larceny. Upon trial, they were found guilty by a jury of the offense charged. They were adjudged guilty and sentenced to a term of imprisonment.
On appeal to this Court, they make only one contention of error, viz: that the trial Judge unduly restricted the voir dire examination of the prospective jurors by the defendants’ counsel.
We have carefully examined the transcript of record with respect to such voir dire examination and find that the objection thereto taken by the defendants is without merit. The trial Judge imposed no restriction whatever upon any question directed to the qualifications as such of any prospective veniremen. It was only when counsel went too far, in the opinion of the Judge, in inquiring into the mental processes of the various jurors as to what their verdict would be in the event of some hypothetical or conjectural state of facts that the Judge restricted the examination. In this the Judge was rightfully exercising his broad discretion. No reversible error has been shown.
Affirmed.
HOBSON, C. J., and MANN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Headrick v. State, 240 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1970)…Certiorari denied. 237 So. 2d 555. ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.…
-
Headrick v. State, 268 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)…qualified to present the issues herein on appeal”. And, further interestingly enough, Head-rick cites and quotes extensively from 29 appellate decisions from all over the country but overlooks quoting from either of the two opinions of this Court, 237 So. 2d 555 and 240 So. 2d 203, affirming the conviction in his own case. Nowhere does he enlighten us as to when his mental fog was lifted or when he became lucid and comprehending, or when he determined he was now best qualified to represent himself. It is…