EUGENIO HERBERTO ROJAS, 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 appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on jury selection, evidence admission, competency, or the application of the M'Naghten Rule.
[1] A trial court properly rejects a challenge to a petit jury pool selection system when the inclusion of a previously exempted group, such as senior citizens, is not improp…
[2] The admission of photographs of a murder victim taken after death does not constitute reversible error if the appellate court is not persuaded of its impropriety.
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 intelligenceThe defendant was convicted of first-degree murder after pleading not guilty by reason of insanity. He appealed, raising multiple issues including cha…
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 Not Guilty By Reason Of Insanity cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant-defendant was charged by an indictment with the crime of murder in the first degree. Subsequently he was so charged by information, to which he pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. He was tried thereon after an evidentiary hearing and ruling by the court that he was competent to stand trial, and after the court had heard and rejected motions of the defendant challenging validity of the grand jury and the county’s petit juror pool. The defendant was found guilty by the verdict of a jury and was so adjudged, and was sentenced to life imprisonment. He filed an appeal to this court.
The brief filed on behalf of the appellant presented five claimed reversible errors in the prosecution of the cause. First the appellant challenged a ruling of the trial court rejecting his motion for dismissal of the information and its underlying indictment on the basis of discrimination in selection of the grand jury pool, in connection with which the trial court passed upon and upheld the validity of Ch. 57-550, Laws of Florida, 1957. Second, appellant contested the ruling of the court denying a motion by which it was contended the county’s method of establishing a pool of jurors for petit jury duty was invalid in that it denied him due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Third, that the court erred in admitting into evidence, over defendant’s objection, certain photographs of the victim taken after her death. [The victim died when her throat was cut.] Fourth, appellant contended that the ruling holding him competent to stand trial was contrary to the evidence. Fifth, appellant challenged the legal correctness of application of the M’Naghten Rule of Sanity in the case.
This court transferred the appeal to the Supreme Court of Florida, as provided for in Rule 2.1(a)(5)(d) FAR, 32 F.S.A. because the first and second contentions of the appellant appeared to be such as to authorize appeal to the Supreme Court, under Art. 5, § 3(b) (1) Fla.Const., 26 F.S.A. The Supreme Court entertained jurisdiction of the appeal, as to the appellant’s first contention relating to the grand jury selection, and affirmed the ruling of the trial court thereon. The Supreme Court re-transferred the appeal to this court for determination of the other questions-involved on the appeal. See Rojas v. State, Fla. 1974, 288 So. 2d 234. In that opinion, with regard to the question raised by the appellant as to the petit juror panel the Supreme Court, inter alia, said:
“By motion, appellant asserted that the petit jury panel was selected in an unconstitutionally discriminator};- manner, in that various groups (specified in the motion) had been systematically excluded from the panel in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. Constitution; appellant requested, and was granted an evidentiary hearing on these allegations. Following this hearing, the challenge to the jury panel was rejected by the trial court. Neither the motion nor the court’s ruling thereon dealt with the constitutional validity of any statute, federal or state. * * *”
The Supreme Court then stated the ruling in question did not involve a construction of a constitutional provision, and said: “The trial court, if anything, merely applied the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the facts it determined existed in the instant case; in fact the apparent basis of the ruling was that no showing of unconstitutional discrimination was made.”
Following the transfer of the appeal to this court we have heard argument and considered the briefs of the parties on the matters thus referred here for consideration and decision, and we hold that no reversible error has been shown.
The trial court, after hearing, properly rejected the defendant’s challenge to the validity of the county’s petit jury pool selection system. Inclusion of the group of senior citizens (65 years of age and over) where previously they had been exempted, was not improper, any more than would be the inclusion of former minors, from age 18 through 20, when made competent therefor by law. On inspection of the photographs in question, we are not persuaded that their introduction constituted error. See Leach v. State, Fla.1961, 132 So. 2d 329; Williams v. State, Fla.1969, 228 So. 2d 377. The ruling of the trial court as to the capacity of the defendant to stand trial was supported by competent substantial evidence. See Pressley v. State, Fla.App.1972, 261 So. 2d 522. The fact that it was necessary that certain of the evidence relating thereto be submitted through an interpreter did not furnish basis for reversal. The court properly refused defendant’s request to charge the jury on the “Durham Rule” of sanity. See Anderson v. State, Fla.1973, 276 So. 2d 17.
The judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dykman v. State, 300 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…contention under point four. See also Seay v. State, Fla. 1973, 286 So. 2d 532. Appellant’s fifth point does not present reversible error under the law as set forth in Rojas v. State, Fla.1973, 288 So. 2d 234. See also Rojas v. State, Fla.App.1974, 296 So. 2d 627. The sixth point claims error upon the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to suppress evidence seized during a search of defendant’s home. The court found that appellant voluntarily consented to the search. The Supreme Court has set forth t…
-
Morejon v. State, 394 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…court’s determination that the preponderance of the evidence established that the defendant was legally competent to stand trial.1 Pressley v. State, 261 S.2d 522 (Fla.3d DCA 1972); Julious v. State, 271 So. 2d 807 (Fla.3d DCA 1973); Rojas v. State, 296 So. 2d 627 (Fla.3d DCA 1974). (2) There was no error in admitting into evidence testimony that the defendant was a drug dealer, nor was it error to refuse to grant a mistrial with regard to this matter. The testimony was offered, not to show the defendant’s ba…
-
Eugenio Herberto Rojas v. State, 307 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 1975)…Certiorari denied. 296 So. 2d 627. ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, Mc-CAIN and OVERTON, JJ„ concur. ERVIN, J., dissents.…
Authorities Cited
- Leach v. State, 132 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 1961)
- Williams v. State, 228 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 1969)
- Earnest Eugene Anderson v. State, 276 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 1973)
- Eugenio Herberto Rojas v. State, 288 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 1973)
- Pressley v. State, 261 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)