JAMES WALTER SANDERS, 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.
James Walter Sanders was convicted of first-degree murder during a robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, Sanders challenged the trial procedure, jury composition regarding his co-defendant's confession, and prosecutorial comments, but the Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, finding no prejudicial error.
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that: (1) the two-jury procedure was not established law in Florida and the trial judge properly followed established procedure; (2) no error occurred because Gibson's confession was not introduced into evidence and proof of his conviction was necessary to establish his guilt as co-perpetrator; and (3) while some prosecutorial remarks were improper, they were not sufficiently prejudicial to deprive Sanders of a fair trial given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
[1] A defendant is not entitled to separate juries for guilt and penalty phases of a trial absent controlling legal authority establishing such a procedure.
[2] Proof of a co-perpetrator's conviction is permissible in a separate trial when the co-perpetrator is alleged to be a principal in the commission of the crime.
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“The first point presented by the appellant urges that he was entitled to a trial before two separate juries; first upon the issue of his guilt and then upon the issue of the penalty.”
Establishes Sanders' primary argument that separate juries should be used for guilt and penalty phases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSanders was charged with felony-murder during a robbery. He was tried before a jury, found guilty of first-degree murder, and received a jury recommen…
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 Capital Punishment cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was duly charged with a felony-murder during a robbery. He was found guilty of first degree murder after a jury trial and received a recommendation of mercy from the jury. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and this appeal followed.
The first point presented by the appellant urges that he was entitled to a trial before two separate juries; first upon the issue of his guilt and then upon the issue of the penalty. He argues that such a procedure would allow the elimination of questions about capital punishment upon the voir dire examination of the jury to try the issue of guilt or innocence. The authority presented is the discussion of Mr. Chief Justice Ervin in his special concurring opinion in Perkins v. State, Fla.1969, 228 So.2d 382, 393. As we read the opinion cited it contains suggestions for further development of the law and does not establish a procedure for the courts of this state. Inasmuch as the trial judge in the instant case followed the established procedure, no error has been demonstrated under this point.
Appellant’s second point urges that he was denied a fair trial because “the jury was made aware that the co-defendant Gibson confessed.” Our review of the record fails to sustain the factual basis for appellant’s assertion on this point. Appellant was granted a trial separate from that of his co-defendant. Nevertheless, it was necessary for the state to prove the guilt of Gibson because he was a co-perpetrator of the felony and the one who actually shot the victim. Gibson’s confession was not introduced into evidence and no error was committed by the trial judge in allowing proof of Gibson’s conviction. McClendon v. State, Fla.1967, 196 So.2d 905.
Appellant’s third point is directed to several comments by the prosecuting attorney on voir dire examination and during argument. The inquiry under such circumstances must be as to whether the conduct complained of is so prejudicial as to deprive the accused of a fair trial. Each case must stand upon its own facts. In the instant case the proof of appellant’s guilt was clear, and the evidence was overwhelming. Our review of the record convinces us that the remarks complained of were in some cases improper but were not sufficient to deprive the appellant of a fair trial. Collins v. State, Fla.1965, 180 So.2d 340; Paramore v. State, Fla.1969, 229 So.2d 855; DeLaine v. State, Fla.App.1970, 230 So.2d 168.
We have in the review of appellant’s points on appeal examined the entire record and find no prejudicial error.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ferguson v. State, 417 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 1982)…2d 56 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966) (judge announced co-defendant’s guilty plea to jury as explanation for recess during trial). The fact that a jury hears of an accomplice’s guilt does not necessarily constitute reversible error. See, e.g., Sanders v. State, 241 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970); Walters v. State, 217 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969); Vitiello v. State, 167 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964); Grisette v. State, 152 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963). Defendant’s final point on appeal concerns the testimony of Adolph…
-
Darden v. State, 329 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 1976)…d OVER-TON, JJ., and FERRIS, Circuit Judge, concur. SUNDBERG, J., dissents with an opinion, with which ENGLAND, J., concurs. . cf. Arline v. State, 303 So. 2d 37 (Fla.App. 1974). . Collins v. State, 180 So. 2d 340 (Fla.1965). . Sanders v. State, 241 So. 2d 430 (Fla.App. 1970) ; Hamrick v. State, 235 So. 2d 360 (Fla.App.1970), cert. den. 238 So. 2d 421 (Fla.) cert. den. 400 U.S. 994, 91 S.Ct. 466, 27 L.Ed.2d 443. . State v. Jones, 204 So. 2d 515 (Fla.1967).…
-
Hayborn v. State, 264 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)…. The judgment appealed from is, therefore, affirmed. See Cotton v. State, Third District Court of Appeal, 261 So. 2d 179, opinion filed April 25, 1972; see also Killingsworth v. State, 1925, 90 Fla. 299, 105 So. 834; Sanders v. State, Fla.App.1971, 241 So. 2d 430, and York v. State, Fla.App.1969, 232 So. 2d 767. Affirmed. REED, C. J, and OWEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sanelco, Inc. v. Roger Wells & the Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 229 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 1969)
- Dudley George Hanemann v. State, 228 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 1969)
- Collins v. State, 180 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 1965)
- Brown's Bldg. Supply, Inc. v. The Commonwealth Corp., 230 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)
- McCLENDON v. State, 196 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 1967)