DAVID KINNEY, 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 a defendant not sentenced to death cannot complain about the exclusion of veniremen opposed to the death penalty, as per Witherspoon v. Illinois.
Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Six prospective jurors were excused for cause because they would no…
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 Recommendation Of Mercy cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant David Kinney was found guilty of first degree murder, with a recommendation of mercy, and sentenced to life imprisonment. The record shows that six prospective jurors, who were excused for cause, responded that they would not under any circumstances render a verdict that would impose the death penalty and would automatically recommend mercy. Kinney first contends that the lower court committed reversible error by the exclusion of the veniremen opposed to the death penalty, relying on Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed. 776 (1968).
Kinney did not receive the death penalty, and produced no evidence to show that the jury was “prosecution prone.” He is, therefore, not entitled to complain that the jury was selected in violation of Wither-spoon. Witherspoon, supra; Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543, 88 S.Ct. 1788, 20 L.Ed.2d 797; Cunningham v. Beto, 5th Cir. 1971, 440 F.2d 1331. In addition, Witherspoon explicitly states that it does not prohibit the exclusion of venire*268men whose attitude toward the death penalty prevents them from making a determination of guilt with impartiality. Williams v. State, Fla.1969, 228 So.2d 377; Paramore v. State, Fla.App.1971, 251 So.2d 344.
The other points raised by appellant have been carefully considered and the judgment is affirmed on authority of Darrigo v. State, Fla.App.1971, 243 So.2d 171; Sims v. State, Fla.App.1966, 184 So.2d 217; Reddish v. State, Fla.1964, 167 So.2d 858 and Constantino v. State, Fla.App.1969, 224 So.2d 341.
Affirmed.
LILES and HOBSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (U.S. 1968)
- Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 (U.S. 1968)
- Reddish v. State, 167 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 1964)
- Williams v. State, 228 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 1969)
- Sims v. State, 184 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- Costantino v. State, 224 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Carmelo Darrigo v. State, 243 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)
- Emmett James Paramore v. State, 251 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Cunningham v. Beto, 440 F.2d 1331 (5th Cir. 1971)