STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. WILLIAM JOHN REICHLE, RELATOR,
v.
WILLIAM F. EDWARDS, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR CITRUS COUNTY, FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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 rejected a petition for writ of prohibition challenging its authority to impanel a statewide grand jury, holding that the Court has proper authority under the legislature's grant of power and that impaneling the grand jury constitutes an administrative, not judicial review, function.
The Supreme Court has proper authority to impanel the statewide grand jury. Although the Court's judicial review jurisdiction is limited by article V, section 3, impaneling a grand jury is not a judicial review function but rather an administrative and supervisory responsibility within the Court's powers under article V, section 2.
[1] The Supreme Court has the authority to impanel a statewide grand jury when authorized by the legislature, acting in an administrative and supervisory capacity rather than…
[2] The impaneling of a statewide grand jury by the Supreme Court is a ministerial act, not involving judgment on potential defendants or alleged acts.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“this Court's responsibility in impaneling a statewide grand jury is "ministerial in nature, and the decision to impanel a statewide grand jury would involve no judgment relative to any potential defendants or any acts alleged to have occurred."”
Establishes that the Court's impaneling function does not constitute judicial review but rather ministerial administration
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe legislature enacted sections 905.31 and 905.40, Florida Statutes (1977), establishing a statewide grand jury to be implemented through the Florida…
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 Petition For Writ Of Prohibition cases and more on FLexlaw
OVERTON, Justice.
This is a petition for writ of prohibition asserting that this Court had no jurisdiction to impanel the third statewide grand jury, and, consequently, any indictments it returned were void. We find we had proper authority to impanel the statewide grand jury and decline to issue the writ.
The legislature established a statewide grand jury by enacting sections 905.31 and 905.40, Florida Statutes (1977).* Relator contends that under article V, section 3, Florida Constitution (1972), this Court has no jurisdiction to act in impaneling a grand jury. Relator asserts that the only possibility for jurisdiction to impanel a statewide grand jury lies in the circuit court under the jurisdictional provisions of article V, section 5.
We agree the judicial review jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is limited by the provisions of section 3 of article V as it existed under the 1972 constitutional provision and as amended effective April 1,1980. We find, however, that this Court is not exercising judicial review as delineated by section 3 in impaneling a statewide grand jury. As expressed in In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 290 So. 2d 473 (Fla.1974), this Court’s responsibility in impaneling a statewide grand jury is “ministerial in nature, and the decision to impanel a statewide grand jury would involve no judgment relative to any potential defendants or any acts alleged to have occurred.”
Once a grand jury process is established by the legislature, the implementation becomes a judicial administrative responsibility since the grand jury’s operation is within the judicial branch. Clearly, in implementing this statute, we are not acting in a judicial review function but rather in an administrative, supervisory capacity. See Art. V, § 2, Fla.Const. We have, in fact, implemented this grand jury process by adoption of Rule of Judicial Administration 2.100.
The legislature has found it necessary to provide for a statewide grand jury imple mented through this Court. This provision is no different from other enactments establishing and controlling the grand jury in each county of this state. The petition for writ of prohibition is denied.
It is so ordered.
SUNDBERG, C. J., and BOYD and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur. ADKINS, J., dissents.
*
905.31 Short Title. — Sections 905.31-905.40 shall be known and may be cited as the “Statewide Grand Jury Act.”
905.40 Payment of costs and expenses.— The costs and expenses incurred by the statewide grand jury in the performance of its functions and duties shall be paid by the state out of funds appropriated to the circuit courts.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Ryan v. State, 411 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…PER CURIAM. See State ex rel. Reichle v. Edwards, 409 So. 2d 1043 (Fla.1982). AFFIRMED. DAUKSCH, C. J., COBB and FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., JJ., concur.…
-
In re Final Report of the 20th Statewide Grand Jury Case #2 v. - (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)…es the impanelment of a statewide grand jury upon a governor’s petition under section 905.33, the court acts in a ministerial and administrative capacity and does not exercise judicial review over the petition. See State ex rel. Reichle v. Edwards, 409 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 1982). That being the case, no opportunity exists for judicial review as to whether the petition sufficiently demonstrates that the crimes or wrongs to be investigated are of a multi-circuit nature. Nor does any judicial oversight mechanism…
-
In re Final Report of the 20th Statewide Grand Jury Case #1 v. - (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)…es the impanelment of a statewide grand jury upon a governor’s petition under section 905.33, the court acts in a ministerial and administrative capacity and does not exercise judicial review over the petition. See State ex rel. Reichle v. Edwards, 409 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 1982). That being the case, no opportunity exists for judicial review as to whether the petition sufficiently demonstrates that the crimes or wrongs to be investigated are of a multi-circuit nature. Nor does any judicial oversight mechanism…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 290 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 1974)