Lambright v. State

Summary

The Florida Supreme Court reviews murder convictions and addresses several trial errors, including juror challenges, use of a special venire, appointment of assistant prosecuting counsel, jury deliberations, and admission of confessions. The court holds that the trial court properly determined that sufficient evidence of the corpus delicti existed to admit the defendants’ confessions, while the jury retained responsibility for determining whether the corpus delicti was ultimately proven. The opinion also discusses the admissibility of a deceased victim’s statement under the res gestae doctrine.

Holdings

1. A question asking whether a venireman would find a person guilty on circumstantial evidence is improper because it does not properly elicit whether the venireman's opinions would preclude him from finding a defendant guilty of a capital offense.
2. The trial court did not err by proceeding with a special venire after the regular panel was exhausted when the defendants did not object to the incomplete regular panel before it was exhausted and did not show prejudice.
3. A court may issue a special venire in anticipation that the regular panel will be insufficient, so long as the court does not depart from one venire and resort to another out of order.
4. The statutory prohibition against drawing a person to serve on a petit jury more than once during the same calendar year creates a personal privilege or exemption, not a disqualification that invalidates the juror.
5. A venireman was competent to serve where he had formed an opinion about another person's guilt in a related murder trial but stated that he knew nothing about the present case and that the prior opinion would not affect the present defendants' trial.
6. The trial court may authorize private counsel to assist the State Attorney when the State's business renders the assistance necessary, provided the counsel acts under the authority of the State Attorney and court and is sworn as an assistant.
7. A jury may be sent back for further deliberation after reporting that it cannot agree when it requests and receives additional explanation of the law.
8. The trial court must determine initially whether evidence tending to establish the corpus delicti is sufficient to permit the accused's confessions to be admitted; the jury then determines whether the corpus delicti has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt and what weight to give the confessions.
9. The deceased's statement identifying who shot him, made the following morning several hours after the shooting, was properly excluded because it was a narrative of a past transaction and lacked circumstances showing spontaneity or a sufficient immediate connection with the shooting.
10. The evidence was sufficient to sustain the first-degree murder verdict, and the Supreme Court would not reverse based on witness credibility where the testimony, if true, supported the conviction.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court improperly refused to permit questioning of a venireman about whether he would convict on circumstantial evidence.
2. Whether the trial court improperly proceeded with a special venire after the regular panel was exhausted without first tendering a full panel of twelve jurors.
3. Whether the issuance and use of a special venire in anticipation of exhaustion of the regular panel was authorized.
4. Whether service by a juror during the same calendar year created a disqualification.
5. Whether the trial court properly denied a challenge for cause to a venireman who had formed an opinion about another person's trial for the same murder.
6. Whether the trial court properly permitted private counsel to assist the State Attorney.
7. Whether the trial court improperly sent the jury back for further deliberations after it indicated that it could not agree.
8. Whether the trial court properly determined that sufficient evidence of the corpus delicti existed to admit the defendants' confessions.
9. Whether the deceased's statement identifying who shot him was admissible as part of the res gestae.
10. Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the murder conviction.

Disposition

affirmed