Summary
affirming a conviction and death sentence even though defendant’s confession presented to the jury contained "expressions of [defendant’s] political beliefs" that "were wholly immaterial and irrelevant"
Summary of this case from Miller v. StateOpinion
October 24, 1952.
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Alachua County, A.Z. Adkins, J.
William A. Fordham and Francisco A. Rodriguez, Tampa, for appellant.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and Leonard Pepper, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant, Orion Nathaniel Johnson, was indicted for murder in the first degree in Marion County, Florida; and, after obtaining a change of venue to Alachua County, was tried and convicted on such charge. The jury did not recommend mercy, and the death sentence was imposed. He has appealed from such judgment of conviction.
We have examined and considered the record in this case in the light of briefs filed and have also, pursuant to subparagraph (2) of Section 924.32, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., reviewed the evidence to determine if the interests of justice require a new trial. We find no reversible error, nor does it appear that the ends of justice require that a new trial be awarded. The testimony overwhelmingly supports the verdict of guilty and, in fact, the appellant freely admitted that he committed the homicide. While the jury might have recommended mercy, this court is not a proper forum in which to seek a mercy commutation. Such jurisdiction lies either with the trial jury or the State Board of Pardons.
The appellant specifically assaults the verdict and judgment because at the time of taking his confession some inquiry was made into his political beliefs, and his confession containing such expressions of his political beliefs was presented to the jury. While we concede that the political beliefs of the appellant were wholly immaterial and irrelevant to the issues involved and should have been deleted therefrom, any error in allowing such statements to remain in the confession was harmless when considered in context with the entire record, and we cannot find that it could have had any effect whatsoever in the ultimate outcome of the case.
The judgment should be and it is hereby
Affirmed.
SEBRING, C.J., and TERRELL, THOMAS, HOBSON, ROBERTS and MATHEWS, JJ., concur.