Tharp v. State

Florida Circuit Courts

Tharp v. State

47 Fla. Supp. 2d 69

CourtCircuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida

DecidedApril 17, 1991

DocketCase No. 89-333AC

StatusPublished

This text of 47 Fla. Supp. 2d 69 (Tharp v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tharp v. State, 47 Fla. Supp. 2d 69 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

ROTHENBERG, J.

We have considered the arguments of the parties upon the facts presented.

In Armstrong v State, 364 So.2d 1238 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), the District Court held that it is error to give the “Allen charge”, first announced in Allen v United States, 164 U.S. 492, 17 S.Ct. 154, 41 L.Ed. 528 (1896), to resolve jury deadlock, in the absence of a deadlocked jury. Here the facts reveal no indication of deadlock arising [70]*70from any quarter. The deadlock charge should not have been given and it is upon this point that we reverse.

We have considered the other points on appeal raised by appellant and find that they are without merit and pose no bar to further prosecution of the matter in the court below.

We reverse and remand for a new trial.

SHAPIRO and KORNBLUM, JJ., concur.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

ROTHENBERG, J.

We have considered the arguments of the parties upon the facts presented.

In Armstrong v State, 364 So.2d 1238 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), the District Court held that it is error to give the “Allen charge”, first announced in Allen v United States, 164 U.S. 492, 17 S.Ct. 154, 41 L.Ed. 528 (1896), to resolve jury deadlock, in the absence of a deadlocked jury. Here the facts reveal no indication of deadlock arising [70]*70from any quarter. The deadlock charge should not have been given and it is upon this point that we reverse.

We have considered the other points on appeal raised by appellant and find that they are without merit and pose no bar to further prosecution of the matter in the court below.

We reverse and remand for a new trial.

SHAPIRO and KORNBLUM, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 Fla. Supp. 2d 69, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tharp-v-state-flacirct-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack