State v. Rodriguez-Acosta

561 So. 2d 531, 1990 WL 40374
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedMarch 29, 1990
Docket73997
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 561 So. 2d 531 (State v. Rodriguez-Acosta) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Rodriguez-Acosta, 561 So. 2d 531, 1990 WL 40374 (Fla. 1990).

Opinion

561 So.2d 531 (1990)

STATE of Florida, Petitioner,
v.
Gabriel RODRIGUEZ-ACOSTA, Respondent.

No. 73997.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 29, 1990.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Michael J. Neimand, Asst. Atty. Gen., Miami, for petitioner.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, and Sharon Jacobs Brown, Sp. Asst. Public Defender of Sharon Jacobs Brown, P.A., Miami, for respondent.

McDONALD, Justice.

We review Rodriguez-Acosta v. State, 548 So.2d 248, 249 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), *532 in which the district court certified the following question as one of great public importance:

Whether a twelve-person jury is required in a first degree murder case in which the prosecution waives the death penalty?

Id. at 249, n. 1. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. In State v. Griffith, 561 So.2d 528 (Fla. 1990), we answered the certified question with a qualified affirmative and held that, regardless of whether the state seeks the death penalty, a twelve-person jury is required in first-degree murder trials unless waived by the defense. In this case defense counsel's agreement to trial by a six-person jury in exchange for the state's waiver of the death penalty constituted an effective and valid waiver of Rodriguez-Acosta's statutory right to trial by a twelve-person jury.[*]Griffith. We therefore quash the district court's decision.

It is so ordered.

EHRLICH, C.J., and SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.

OVERTON, J., concurs in result only.

NOTES

[*] The following exchange took place on the record.

MR. McDONALD: [Defense Counsel]: For the record, I have discussed the matter with my client. He is willing to go with the six-person jury.

[THE COURT]: Okay. State?

MR. BERK: [Prosecutor]: No problem, Judge. We will waive our right to have a twelve-person jury.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Hamilton v. State
746 So. 2d 512 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)
Blair v. State
698 So. 2d 1210 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1997)
Jefferson v. State
571 So. 2d 70 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
561 So. 2d 531, 1990 WL 40374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-rodriguez-acosta-fla-1990.