HAROLD S. SMITH, AS JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. CLAYTON ALVIN HAMM, 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 Florida Supreme Court reversed a District Court of Appeal decision that had prohibited a murder trial based on double jeopardy. The Supreme Court found that the District Court failed to follow controlling precedent from the Supreme Court itself.
Yes, the District Court of Appeal erred by failing to follow the controlling precedent of the Florida Supreme Court regarding former jeopardy after a mistrial.
“We here review a decision by the District Court of Appeal, Second District, prohibiting further trial on a charge of murder by appellee on the theory of former jeopardy after a mistrial had been declared by the trial court.”
Identifies the subject of the review.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellee was charged with murder. A mistrial was declared by the trial court. The appellee sought a prohibition against further trial based on former …
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 Former Jeopardy cases and more on FLexlaw
We here review a decision by the District Court of Appeal, Second District, prohibiting further trial on a charge of murder by appellee on the theory of former jeopardy after a mistrial had been declared by the trial court. The factual background, circumstances and ruling are reported in the decision of the District Court in State ex rel. Hamm v. Smith, etc., 209 So.2d 876, and it would be useless to repeat them here. In so holding, the District Court failed to follow the decision of this court in Adkins v. Smith, 205 So.2d 530, which is controlling in the case sub judice.
Accordingly, the decision under review is reversed and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion under the authority of Adkins v. Smith, supra.
It is so ordered.
ERVIN, C. J., ROBERTS, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., and RAWLS, District Court Judge, concur.
DREW, J., dissents with Opinion.
(dissenting):
We have no power to reverse a district court in a direct appeal, no matter how erroneous the decision may be, unless it falls within the category of cases defined in the Constitution. This one does not. I, therefore, dissent on jurisdictional grounds.
DREW, Justice
(dissenting):
We have no power to reverse a district court in a direct appeal, no matter how erroneous the decision may be, unless it falls within the category of cases defined in the Constitution. This one does not. I, therefore, dissent on jurisdictional grounds.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Smith, 239 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)…t must be armed with discretion since he is conducting the trial and is familiar with the circumstances, tensions and conditions which may be present in the courtroom. Adkins v. Smith, 205 So. 2d 530 (Fla.1967). See also Smith v. State ex rel. Hamm, 225 So. 2d 417 (Fla.1969), reversing State ex rel. Hamm v. Smith, 209 So. 2d 876 (Fla.App.1968), upon which relator relies. The suggestion for prohibition is denied. JOHNSON, C. J., and RAWLS and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Adkins v. Smith, 205 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 1967)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Clayton Alvin Hamm v. Smith, 209 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)