ROOSEVELT JAMES, 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.
Roosevelt James was indicted for first-degree murder and sought bail through habeas corpus petition after the primary eyewitness died. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the Circuit Court's denial of bail, holding that the transcript of the deceased witness's testimony—which he had given at a preliminary hearing and been cross-examined—was sufficient to establish a great presumption of guilt under the Florida Constitution.
The Circuit Court did not err in denying bail. Eyewitness testimony from a preliminary hearing—particularly where the witness has been subjected to cross and recross-examination—is sufficient to raise a great presumption of guilt necessary to justify denial of bail under the Florida Constitution, even where the witness is later deceased and the evidence is presented only in transcript form.
[1] A person charged with a capital offense or an offense punishable by life imprisonment is entitled to release on reasonable bail unless the proof of guilt is evident or th…
[2] A transcript of a deceased witness's testimony, previously subjected to cross-examination, may be considered as evidence of a great presumption of guilt at a bail hearing…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Until adjudged guilty, every person charged with a crime or violation of municipal or county ordinance shall be entitled to release on reasonable bail with sufficient surety unless charged with a capital offense or an offense punishable by life imprisonment and the proof of guilt is evident or the presumption is great.”
Statement of the constitutional right to bail under the Florida Constitution that governs bail determinations in capital cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRoosevelt James was indicted for first-degree murder of Dan Bevans. At a preliminary hearing before the County Judge, Andrew Wilson testified as an ey…
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 Right To Bail cases and more on FLexlaw
By direct appeal, we are asked to review the order of the Circuit Court of Columbia County denying bail on defendant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. Defendant James is under indictment for first degree murder.
The precise question presented is whether the Circuit Court erred in denying- bail.
The facts of the case are these: Defendant was indicted for first degree murder of one Dan Bevans. At subsequent preliminary hearing before the County Judge, the State’s most important evidence of probable cause was given by witness Andrew Wilson, who testified as an eyewitness to the killing. After Wilson died, the defendant by petition for writ of habeas corpus questioned whether he was entitled to release on bail. At the hearing, the State Attorney admitted that for purposes of the hearing on bail, the primary evidence against defendant was a transcript of testimony of the witness Wilson. The Court denied bail and ordered the defendant held for trial. Defendant then appealed to this Court.
The constitutional right to bail in Florida is specified in Fla.Const., art. 1, § 14, Declaration of Rights, (1968), F.S.A. as follows:
“Until adjudged guilty, every person charged with a crime or violation of municipal or county ordinance shall be entitled to release on reasonable bail with sufficient surety unless charged with a capital offense or an offense punishable by life imprisonment and the proof of guilt is evident or the presumption is great." (Emphasis supplied)
At a hearing on the question of right to bail, it was necessary that the State produce evidence indicating great presumption of guilt. In this case, the evidence produced was that of an eye-witness who had testified at preliminary hearing and had been subjected to cross and recross examination. This is sufficient to raise a great presumption of guilt, adequate to resist an attempt to secure release on bail.
The question is not before us whether the transcript of the deceased witness’ testimony is admissible as evidence at trial. See Fla.Const., art. 1, § 16, Declaration of Rights, (1968); Fla.Const., § 11, Declaration of Rights, (1885); Davis v. State, 65 *384So.2d 307 (Fla.1953); Putnal v. State, 56 Fla. 86, 47 So. 864 (1908); Blackwell v. State, 79 Fla. 709, 86 So. 224, 15 A.L.R. 465 (1920); Coley v. State, 67 Fla. 178, 64 So. 751 (1914) ; Young v. State, 85 Fla. 348, 96 So. 381 (1923). At the hearing on bail, the State conceded that the transcript of Wilson’s testimony was its primary evidence, on which it had to rely. We are not at this time confronted with the question of the admissibility of Wilson’s testimony at trial and do not pass upon the question of its admissibility. Its weight may be considered at a hearing on bail and given consideration by the Court.
The order of the Circuit Court denying defendant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus demanding bail is correct. The order of this Court temporarily staying trial pending resolution of the question raised is hereby dissolved. This case is remanded to the Circuit Court of Columbia County for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, CARLTON and BOYD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Columbus Fletcher Primm v. State, 293 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)…ion of a reasonable doubt. See State ex rel. Freeman v. Kelly, Fla.1956, 86 So. 2d 166; State ex rel. Hernandez v. Culbreath, 152 Fla. 356, 11 So. 2d 569; State ex rel. Connor v. Sullivan, 160 Fla. 844, 36 So. 2d 828.” In James v. State, Fla. 1970, 241 So. 2d 383, the defendant James was indicted for first degree murder. At a subsequent preliminary hearing an eye-witness testified to the homicide. Thereafter, the eye-witness died and James petitioned for writ of ha-beas corpus questioning whether or not he w…
-
State ex rel. Edward E. Loper v. Stack, 291 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)…her application for [*209] bail in accordance with the applicable principles pertaining thereto.1 Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied. WALDEN and CROSS, JJ., concur. . In support of his contention, petitioner cites James v. State, Fla.1970, 241 So. 2d 383, and State v. Thursby, Fla.App.1966, 184 So. 2d 505. These cases, which are both factually and legally distinguishable from the case sub judice, dealt primarily with the quantum of proof and admissibility of certain proof rather than burden of proof…
-
Arthur v. The Honorable Carl H. Harper, 371 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)…to do with the measure and burden of proof on the issue of whether the proof of guilt is evident. In Florida, the burden is on the accused to prove that the proof of guilt is not evident. State ex rel. Loper v. Stack, supra. But see James v. State, 241 So. 2d 383 (Fla.1970) and Primm v. State, 293 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). And the measure of proof in order to sustain a denial of the right to bail has been said to be greater than beyond a reasonable doubt. Russell v. State, 71 Fla. 236, 71 So. 27 (1916).…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Will Blackwell and Robert Blackwell v. The State of Floirda, 79 Fla. 709 (Fla. 1920)
- Young v. State, 85 Fla. 348 (Fla. 1923)
- Putnal v. State, 56 Fla. 86 (Fla. 1908)
- Davis v. State, 65 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 1953)
- Coley v. State, 67 Fla. 178 (Fla. 1914)