McNichols v. State
This text of 279 So. 2d 377 (McNichols v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Zebedee McNICHOLS, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender and Mark King Leban, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. and William L. Rogers, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, C.J., and PEARSON and CHARLES CARROLL, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
The appellant has alleged prejudicial error in his trial because of the trial judge's refusal to allow a question to prospective jurors on voir dire examination. He relies upon the holding of the Supreme Court of Florida in Pinder v. State, 27 Fla. 370, 8 So. 837 (1891), and the rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States in Aldridge v. United States, 283 U.S. 308, 51 S.Ct. 470, 75 L.Ed. 1054 (1931), and Ham v. South Carolina, 409 U.S. 524, 93 S.Ct. 848, 35 L.Ed.2d 46 (1973).
The State has confessed error and waived oral argument. We have examined the record before us and find that the cited authorities are applicable. We therefore reverse the judgment and sentence and remand the cause for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
279 So. 2d 377, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcnichols-v-state-fladistctapp-1973.