JESSE DAVIS
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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 Florida Supreme Court reversed a manslaughter conviction, holding that while the trial court's failure to poll the jury violated Section 224 of the Criminal Procedure Act, this procedural error was harmless. The Court's primary ground for reversal was that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain the conviction, as the State failed to establish who was the aggressor.
The Court held that Section 224's polling requirement is directory rather than mandatory, and the defendant failed to show harmful error since all jurors were present and the verdict was delivered in open court. However, the Court reversed the conviction based on insufficient evidence, as the State failed to establish the critical fact of who was the aggressor.
“Section 224 is directory.”
The Court held that the jury polling requirement, while codified in statute, is directory rather than mandatory, and failure to poll does not require reversal without showing harmful error.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Jesse Davis was convicted of manslaughter. At trial, all jurors appeared in court and returned a verdict, but the judge did not poll the jur…
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 Mandatory Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
We have before us for review a judgment of conviction of manslaughter.
One question presented is whether Section 224 of the Criminal Procedure Act is mandatory or directory *598as requiring the polling of the jury before rendition of verdict. The section reads:
“When the jurors have agreed upon a verdict they shall be conducted into the court room by the officer having them in charge. Their names shall be called by the clerk and when all jurors respond to their names the judge shall ask them if an agreement has been reached on a verdict. If the foreman answers in the affirmative, the judge shall call upon him to deliver the verdict in writing to the clerk. The Court may then examine the verdict and correct it as to matters of form with the unanimous consent of the jurors. The clerk shall then read the verdict to the jurors and unless disagreement is expressed by one or more of them or the jury be polled, the verdict shall be entered of record, and the jurors discharged from the cause.”
The effect of the Criminal Procedure Act was to virtually codify the established practice of our courts. The party seeking reversal for its non-observance has the burden of showing harmful error.
In this case all the jurors came into court and while they were not polled there is no contention that any member of the jury was absent. The presiding judge inquired if they had reached a verdict. The verdict was delivered and published in open court in the presence of the jury.
Section 309 provides:
“When Judgment Not To Be Reversed Or Modified. No judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court after an examination of all the appeal papers is of the opinion that error was committed which injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appel*599lant. It shall not be presumed that error injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant.”
We hold that Section 224 is directory. The contention of appellant is without merit.
The next question is the sufficiency of the evidence. It is urged by the State that the evidence is conflicting and the verdict of the jury should be upheld. It is true there are conflicts as to relevant facts. The real question is who was the aggressor in bringing on the difficulty? When the conflicts in the evidence are disregarded and the State’s evidence is viewed in its most favorable light we are not satisfied to uphold a conviction on it. We therefore hold the evidence legally insufficient to sustain the judgment. The judgement is reversed.
BROWN, C. J., TERRELL, and BUFORD, JJ., concur.
WIHTFIELD, and CHAPMAN, JJ., dissenting.
THOMAS, J., not participating.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wilson v. State, 436 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 1983)…Criminal Procedure 3.450, the error has not been shown by appellant to be harmful. A party seeking reversal because a jury wasn’t properly polled concerning its advisory sentence has the burden of showing harmful error. Davis v. State, 150 Fla. 597, 8 So. 2d 36 (1942). As in Davis, there is no contention here that any member of the jury was absent; also there is no contention that the published advisory sentences were not the sentences concurred in by a majority of the jury. The advisory sentences were pro…
-
Lyons v. Town OF Lake Park, 153 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)…gainst him, and on the record we can not say that the ruling was erroneous. It is not amiss to emphasize here that the risk of an inadequate record for full appellate review generally rests on the party asserting the error. Cf. Davis v. State, 1942, 150 Fla. 597, 8 So. 2d 36; O’Steen v. State, 1927, 92 Fla. 1062, 1075-1076, 111 So. 725; Coggins v. State, Fla.App.1958, 101 So. 2d 400, 403. It is further urged on behalf of the petitioners that they were tried and convicted on demonstrative evidence obtained…
-
Thomas v. State, 65 So. 2d 866 (Fla. 1953)…A party seeking a reversal because of such an occurrence has the burden of showing harmful error, that is, that he was injuriously affected in his substantial rights by the occurrence complained of. No such showing has been made. See Davis v. State, 150 Fla. 597, 8 So. 2d 36, and Cornelius v. State, Fla., 49 So. 2d 332, 335. In the latter case the Court found that there was an error as complained of, but said: [*871] " * * * it does not follow that the error was harmful or prejudicial. ‡ ‡ * The harmless e…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence