From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brannan v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
May 9, 1980
383 So. 2d 234 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

Opinion

No. NN-289.

November 29, 1979. On Rehearing May 9, 1980.

Gary R. Dunham, Asst. Public Defender, Starke, for appellant.

Maurice Giunta, Asst. State's Atty., Gainesville, Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Miguel A. Olivella, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.


This cause is before us on petition for a writ of prohibition to prevent, on grounds of double jeopardy, petitioner's trial of the offense of shooting into an occupied vehicle. Petitioner pleaded not guilty to the information charging that offense, requested trial by jury and a jury was selected and sworn. Thereafter, a motion to dismiss was filed alleging that the information was fatally defective, citing Hamilton v. State, 30 Fla. 229, 11 So. 523 (1892). The trial judge granted the motion to dismiss and released the jury. Counsel for the State filed an amended information worded exactly the same as the original information. Counsel for petitioner again moved to dismiss on the same grounds as his previous motion and also on the grounds that jeopardy had attached and precluded trial. The State argued that Shumake v. State, 90 Fla. 133, 105 So. 314 (1925) appeared to reach an opposite conclusion to that reached by the court in Hamilton v. State, supra. The trial judge denied the motion to dismiss and the cause was set for trial.

Jeopardy attaches when a criminal trial commences before a jury, United States v. Spinella, 506 F.2d 426 (5th Cir. 1975), rehearing denied 515 F.2d 510 (5th Cir. 1976), cert. denied 423 U.S. 917, 96 S.Ct. 227, 46 L.Ed.2d 147 (1976), and a trial before a jury commences when the jury has been selected and sworn, Bell v. Wainwright, 476 F.2d 964 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied 414 U.S. 1000, 94 S.Ct. 352, 38 L.Ed.2d 235 (1973).

Accordingly, petition for writ of prohibition is GRANTED and petitioner is forever discharged of the offense charged.

McCORD, Acting C.J., and BOOTH and LARRY G. SMITH, JJ., concur.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING GRANTED

By Amended Petition for Rehearing, the State brings to the attention of this Court the decisions of the United States Supreme Court in Lee v. United States, 432 U.S. 23 (1977), and United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82 (1978). Under these decisions, the trial court's granting of defendant's motion to dismiss the information after the jury has been sworn and jeopardy attached does not bar subsequent refiling and trial on the same charges.

Accordingly, the petition for rehearing is granted, and writ of prohibition denied.

McCORD, BOOTH and LARRY G. SMITH, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Brannan v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
May 9, 1980
383 So. 2d 234 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)
Case details for

Brannan v. State

Case Details

Full title:JAMES BRANNAN, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: May 9, 1980

Citations

383 So. 2d 234 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

Citing Cases

Loy v. Leone

It is well established that a criminal case commences with the selection and swearing of the jury. Moore v.…