Haynes v. State
Citations
- 71 Fla. 585
- 72 So. 180
Syllabus
<p>1. In giving effect to the rights secured by the organic law for the protection of human life and liberty, courts should consider the substance of things, and should not be controlled by mere matters of form or of technical procedure.</p> <p>2. Under the controlling organic provisions a person accused of crime is not entitled to have members of his race selected as jurors for his trial.</p> <p>3. A person on trial for a criminal offense has a right to a judicial determination by timely and appropriate procedure whether members of his race legally qualified to serve as jurors have been unlawfully discriminated against by officers in selecting the jury for his trial so as to deny him the equal protection of the laws, or so as. to deny him the right to be “equal before the law” in maintaining his “inalienable rights * of enjoying and defending life and liberty.”</p> <p>4. Where the statute of a State in its terms does not abridge a privilege or immunity of citizens of the United States, or does not deny to any person the equal protection of the laws, the action of officials in executing the provisions of such statute is presumed to be legal.</p> <p>5. When illegal action by an official in the .administration or execution of a valid statute is charged, such illegal action should be dub', properly, directly and distinctly alleged, and if not admitted by demurrer or otherwise, should be duly proven or proof thereof duly offered according to the usual and proper mode of procedure in such cases.</p> <p>6. jVyhere the evidence does not sustain an allegation that in selecting a jury the officers- “discriminated against negroes of African descent because of their race, color or previous condition of servitude,” a challenge of the array or a motion to quash the venire on such ground is properly overruled.</p> <p>7. In the absence of legislative provisions describing the. mode in which jury views are to be conducted, it is more in consonance with the theory and methods of jud
Judges: Cockrell, Ellis, Shackleford, Taylor, Whitfield
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
10 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Snyder v. MassachusettsSupreme Court· 1934-01-08· cited 2,822×
- Washington v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1923-12-17· cited 44×
- Kersey v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1917-04-05· cited 32×
- McCollum v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1954-07-20· cited 21×
- Marden v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1967-10-24· cited 20×
- Porter v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1963-10-16· cited 15×
- Osborne v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1924-05-01· cited 8×
- Royals v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1917-04-19· cited 1×
- Thomas v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1953-06-05· cited 1×
- Commonwealth v. BeattiePhiladelphia County Court of Oyer and Terminer· 1927-06-20
Cites
11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Martin v. TexasSupreme Court· 1906-02-19· cited 167×
- Shular v. StateIndiana Supreme Court· 1886-02-09· cited 75×
- State v. MortensenUtah Supreme Court· 1903-08-12· cited 73×
- Elias v. Territory of ArizonaArizona Supreme Court· 1904-03-26· cited 28×
- Rutherford v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky· 1880-11-20· cited 28×
- State v. LeeOregon Supreme Court· 1880-01-15· cited 26×
- State v. ReedIdaho Supreme Court· 1894-01-12· cited 23×
- People v. Tarm PoiCalifornia Supreme Court· 1890-10-25· cited 19×
- Whitley v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas· 1914-09-28· cited 16×
- Garcia v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1894-06-15· cited 10×
- Binyon v. United StatesCourt Of Appeals Of Indian Territory· 1903-09-23· cited 3×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.