David L. McCain

In Lowe v. Stack, the petitioner sought habeas corpus relief after being tried and convicted of first-degree murder based on an information rather than an indictment, arguing the proceeding was invalid under Florida's constitution following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Furman v. Georgia. The Florida Supreme Court held that the trial was void because capital offenses, once the death penalty procedures were reinstated by Chapter 72-72 effective October 1, 1972, required indictment by grand jury under Article I, Section 15(a) of the Florida Constitution. The court reasoned that Furman had invalidated only the prior sentencing statute (Chapter 70-339), not the underlying capital offense category, and that the new bifurcated trial procedures in Chapter 72-72 re-established the need for indictment, consistent with its earlier ruling in State ex rel. Manucy v. Wadsworth. On rehearing, the court adhered to this conclusion.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Dennis Wayne Wilson appealing his conviction for second-degree murder after a jury trial on a first-degree murder charge. Wilson challenged the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress a confession without an explicit finding of voluntariness and the constitutionality of Florida statute § 913.08(1)(a) and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.350(a), which provided the same number of peremptory challenges to defendants charged with capital felonies as to those charged with felonies punishable by life imprisonment, claiming violations of due process and equal protection. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the confession was properly admitted as voluntary based on uncontroverted testimony regarding Miranda warnings, the defendant's understanding, and the absence of any coercion or mistreatment. The court further ruled that the peremptory challenge provisions were valid procedural rules that did not infringe on fundamental rights and that Wilson had not demonstrated any prejudice from their application.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

This case involved a dispute between V. Jackson Kennedy and Mary E. Kennedy over the terms of their divorce judgment, specifically regarding alimony, property division, and support obligations. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the dissolution of marriage, child custody arrangements, and attorney's fee award, but reversed the awards of lump sum alimony, periodic alimony, and the requirement for life insurance to secure payments. The court reasoned that the wife, who earned over $20,000 annually and possessed significant assets and professional skills, did not demonstrate a need for alimony or maintenance under Florida's no-fault divorce laws, and thus modified the property division to equal shares in the marital home while confirming prior payments as rehabilitative. The matter was remanded for entry of a conforming judgment.

family lawproperty

This case involved a dispute between Saul Goodman and attorney Richard Olsen over a $300,000 agreement executed in New York for purchasing stock in Omega Equities as a joint venture, including a $150,000 loan from Goodman to Olsen secured by stock and with repurchase guarantees. Goodman sued in Florida seeking the unpaid loan balance and breach damages after Olsen refused to buy back shares, and Olsen defended on grounds that the contract was usurious. The Florida Supreme Court determined that New York law governed the agreement's validity under choice-of-law rules and concluded it was a joint venture with uncertain contingencies rather than a usurious loan. The court therefore reversed the lower court judgment in Olsen's favor and remanded for a new trial.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved multiple defendants convicted of conspiracy to commit arson and arson after gasoline-filled bottles were thrown into a closed school building, following their participation in a demonstration protesting the busing of black children. The defendants moved to dismiss on grounds that Florida's conspiracy statute (§ 833.04) was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad for lacking an overt-act requirement, and that the jury selection statute (Chapter 40) was invalid, while also raising claims of trial errors including voir dire restrictions, insufficient evidence, witness disclosure issues, severance, evidentiary rulings, and prosecutorial misconduct. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, ruling that the statutes were constitutional because the conspiracy provision adequately defined prohibited conduct under due process standards and did not require an overt act, while deeming other asserted errors either unsupported by the record or harmless. A dissent argued that the conspiracy statute threatened free speech by criminalizing mere agreement without an overt act or clear danger.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case concerned the five-year revocation of George J. Abraham's driver's license by the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles after he was classified as a habitual traffic offender under Sections 322.264 and 322.27(5), Florida Statutes. Abraham petitioned for certiorari to the District Court of Appeal, which denied relief, and he then appealed directly to the Florida Supreme Court challenging the statutes' constitutionality. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order, holding that the same statutes had already been upheld as constitutional in its recent decision in Zarsky v. State and finding no basis to depart from that precedent.

criminal law

This case involved a certified public accountant challenging the revocation of his license by the Florida State Board of Accountancy, which had found him guilty of certifying false financial statements for a client company over multiple years and failing to follow generally accepted auditing standards. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the relevant licensing statutes but reversed the revocation, concluding that while the evidence supported a finding that the accountant should have known of the fraud, it did not provide substantial competent proof of the specific willful intent required for the fraud counts. The court emphasized that professional license revocation proceedings are penal in nature and must adhere to due process standards, including the use of non-hearsay evidence to establish intent, and instead imposed only a public censure. The decision addressed both the sufficiency of the evidence presented at the administrative hearing and the procedural requirements for such disciplinary actions.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a workers' compensation claim by Allen Murphy, a floating sales manager trainee for an insurance company, who was injured while attempting to help secure a truck with failing brakes on a public road after accompanying a coworker on business rounds. The Judge of Industrial Claims awarded medical benefits, disability compensation, and fees, applying the positional risk doctrine on the ground that Murphy's employment had placed him at the scene. The Industrial Relations Commission reversed the award, concluding that the conditions of employment did not create a zone of special danger and that the injury was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of Murphy's job duties. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the Commission's decision, holding that the facts did not satisfy the test for compensability under applicable precedent and that the injury fell outside the course of employment.

labor & employment

This case concerned a challenge to the constitutionality of Florida Statutes Section 856.011, which prohibits intoxication that endangers the safety of persons or property or that causes a public disturbance in a public place. The trial court dismissed the disorderly intoxication charge against the defendant based on a prior local ruling declaring the statute unconstitutional. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the dismissal on direct appeal. The court reasoned that the statute represents a valid delegation of authority to officers, confined to protecting public safety rather than regulating individual morality, and that its terms provide sufficient notice of prohibited conduct to avoid vagueness or overbreadth challenges.

criminal law

This case involved negligence claims by the administrators of two deceased minors against a railroad company after a car-train collision at a crossing in Jacksonville, Florida, where trees and growth allegedly obstructed views. The plaintiffs sought to introduce evidence of a prior similar accident at the same crossing two weeks earlier under comparable conditions to show the dangerous condition of the premises. The trial court excluded the evidence, and the district court affirmed, but the Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that evidence of prior similar accidents at the identical location and under similar circumstances is admissible to prove the existence of a dangerous condition. The court reasoned that the prior incident met the requirements of similarity in time, location, and conditions as outlined in established Florida precedent and secondary authorities, warranting a new trial.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a 16-year-old charged with multiple counts of grand larceny, where the state sought to waive juvenile court jurisdiction so he could be tried as an adult. The juvenile court transferred the case after finding probable cause and that the public interest favored waiver, but later ruled Florida Statutes Section 39.09(2) unconstitutional on grounds that it improperly regulated court procedure in conflict with Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure. The Florida Supreme Court held that the statute's requirements to consider prospects for rehabilitation and specified factors are directory rather than mandatory, can be harmonized with the court rules and Kent v. United States factors, and do not violate separation of powers. The court therefore reversed the unconstitutionality ruling but affirmed the waiver order, finding no abuse of discretion in the juvenile court's decision to transfer the case.

criminal lawfamily lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute over the estate of Adrian Clyde Humphreys, Jr., where his first wife, as a judgment creditor from their divorce, challenged the constitutionality of Florida's dower statutes after the second wife elected to take dower, which would reduce the assets available to satisfy the creditor's claim. The Circuit Court upheld the statutes' constitutionality, but the Florida Supreme Court reversed on the grounds that the first wife lacked standing to raise the constitutional challenge. The court reasoned that only a party directly adversely affected by the alleged gender discrimination—specifically a male widower denied dower rights—could challenge the statutes, and the ex-wife was not such a party. The case was remanded for further proceedings without addressing the merits of the constitutional claim.

family lawproperty

The case involved Joseph Taylor's conviction for first-degree murder during a robbery at a package store, where shots were fired amid a struggle, killing the 72-year-old owner; the jury found Taylor guilty and recommended mercy, but the trial judge immediately imposed a death sentence. Taylor appealed, raising claims that a judge's out-of-court permission for a newspaper interview with a juror violated Florida statutes on juror admonitions and that the rushed override of the jury's recommendation violated due process and sentencing procedures under F.S. 921.141. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding the juror contact constituted harmless error because a post-trial hearing showed no discussion of the case and no effect on the juror's decision. However, it reversed the death sentence, holding that the judge failed to adequately consider statutory mitigating circumstances such as the defendant's lack of prior criminal history, his severe injuries from being shot, and uncertainty over who fired the fatal bullet, and directed imposition of life imprisonment consistent with the jury's recommendation.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a workers' compensation claim by Albert Williamson, Jr., who suffered simultaneous injuries to both feet after falling from a roof while working as a carpenter. The Judge of Industrial Claims awarded permanent partial disability based on the body as a whole due to reduced earning capacity, but the Industrial Relations Commission reversed, holding that the injuries should be treated separately as scheduled members under the statute. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the Commission and reinstated the original order, reasoning that independent simultaneous injuries to two scheduled members may qualify as an injury to the body as a whole under Florida Statute § 440.15(3)(u) when they produce a greater disability than the sum of the individual scheduled ratings, consistent with the law's policy of compensating for loss of earning capacity and analogous to the treatment of subsequent injuries under § 440.15(5)(c).

labor & employment

The case concerned a defendant convicted of murdering a police officer during a rape and initially sentenced to death by a jury that did not recommend mercy. Following the U.S. Supreme Court's Furman decision, the trial court vacated the death sentence and imposed life imprisonment. The Florida Supreme Court reviewed a district court ruling that would have remanded the case for a new penalty trial under statutes enacted after the crime. The court held that the new penalty provisions, including a mandatory 25-year parole ineligibility, could not apply retroactively as that would violate ex post facto principles, so the sentencing law in effect at the time of the offense must govern instead. It further directed that a new jury be impaneled to determine the penalty since the original jury could not reconvene.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned the constitutionality of Florida Statute § 847.05, which criminalized the public use or utterance of indecent or obscene language as a second-degree misdemeanor. Appellant Jones was arrested under the statute for using profanity toward police officers, leading to additional charges and a conviction for marijuana possession; he argued that the statute's overbreadth rendered the arrest and subsequent search invalid. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the statute as constitutional, ruling it was not void for overbreadth because it established a comprehensible standard for an average person regarding prohibited conduct. The court reasoned that the law aligned with common-law traditions against outrages of public decency and with precedents such as Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire permitting limits on unprotected speech.

criminal lawfree speech

The case involved a workers' compensation claim by Nilda Cotera, who was injured when she tripped over debris and fell on a lot owned by Ted Marr Plumbing while walking to her employer's rented workspace on the premises. The Judge of Industrial Claims and Industrial Relations Commission found the injury compensable as a 'special hazard,' but the Florida Supreme Court reversed those decisions. The court held that the injury fell under the 'going and coming' rule because it occurred on property neither owned nor controlled by the employer, the employee was not required to use that specific route, and the facts were indistinguishable from prior precedent denying liability for similar off-premises injuries. The court distinguished cases involving public ways or employer-mandated paths and remanded for an order consistent with its ruling.

labor & employment

This case involved an indigent widow seeking to adopt a second child whose natural mother's whereabouts were unknown, but who could not afford the $25-30 cost of publishing notice of the adoption petition under Florida Statutes Sections 49.011(10) and 49.10 (1971). The trial court dismissed her class-action suit for declaratory relief seeking either county payment of the fees under the indigency statute or a ruling that the publication requirement was unconstitutional as applied; the district court affirmed. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding the statutes unconstitutional under the due process and equal protection clauses because they denied indigent litigants access to courts in proceedings involving fundamental family relationships, relying on Boddie v. Connecticut to conclude that the state could not condition jurisdiction on payment of publication costs when no alternative means existed. The court directed that the state pay such costs or the legislature provide a less expensive method of service.

family lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case involved a contract dispute over the purchase and development of real property in the Bahamas, where a Florida resident partnered with a Canadian investor to form a company, secure financing via a mortgage and promissory note, and divide ownership interests, with the contract executed in the Bahamas. After default on the first mortgage payment, the Florida circuit court applied Bahamian law to both the contract's validity and the available remedies, canceling the mortgage and note while adjusting stock ownership. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that while the law of the place where the contract was made (Bahamas) governs its nature, validity, and interpretation, remedies and procedures are governed exclusively by the law of the forum (Florida). The Court reasoned that this distinction follows longstanding Florida precedent on choice of law and comity, requiring remand for application of Florida remedial law.

propertyprocedure

This case involved a workers' compensation claim by Gertrude Galarneau against her employer Caroly of Miami after she suffered knee and back injuries from two falls at work in February 1970, leading to two surgeries and disputes over medical expenses, disability benefits, and attorney's fees. The Judge of Industrial Claims awarded some benefits while denying others, and the Industrial Relations Commission affirmed; the Florida Supreme Court upheld those findings as supported by competent substantial evidence. However, the court reversed the attorney's fee award of $1,167, which had been set by stipulation under the Dade County Bar fee schedule without supporting evidence or a proper hearing on the required factors from Lee Engineering & Construction Co. v. Fellows. The case was remanded solely for reconsideration of a reasonable fee in line with prior precedent like Heavy Constructors, Inc. v. Dericho.

labor & employmentprocedure