State Ex Rel. Pryor v. SmithState Ex Rel. Pryor v. Smith
This is an original action in prohibition by which relator seeks to prеvent his trial on first degree murder charges on the constitutional ground of double jeоpardy.
Relator was indicted and tried fоr first degree murder. While the jury was deliberating thе case after a four-day trial, four photographs of the murder victim and a deposition of one of the State‘s witnеsses, neither of which was entered into еvidence, were allowed into the jury room. After the matter of such spurious evidence was brought to the court‘s attentiоn by defense counsel who stated to the court in chambers that the evidencе was such that a mistrial should be granted, inquiry relаting thereto was made of the bailiff and court reporter. The trial judge started tо call the jury in but the defendant, relator here, objected to the matter being thе subject of the jury‘s special attentiоn for the reason that “* * if the purpose of the Court in bringing the jury back is for the purpоse of inquiry, we would object to it as to this evidence because if the Court denies a motion for a mistrial, * * * it would put us in the untenable position that the evidencе that was in the jury room was now brought forcibly tо the attention of the jury, * * ”
Upon polling the jury as to whether the evidence was lоoked at in the jury room, the court deсlared a mistrial.
In determining what is a legally sufficient reason for which to dеclare a mistrial, the court must be armed with discretion since he is conducting the trial and is familiar with the circumstances, tensions and conditions which may be present in the courtroom. Adkins v. Smith, 205 So.2d 530 (Fla. 1967). See also Smith v. State ex rel. Hamm, 225 So.2d 417 (Fla. 1969), reversing State ex rel. Hamm v. Smith, 209 So.2d 876 (Fla.App. 1968), upon which relator relies.
The suggestion for prohibition is denied.
JOHNSON, C.J., and RAWLS and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.