Case Name: Burnard Whitten, Plaintiff in Error, v. The State of Florida, Defendant in Error
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1921-08-12
Citations: 82 Fla. 181
Docket Number: 
Parties: Burnard Whitten, Plaintiff in Error, v. The State of Florida, Defendant in Error.
Judges: Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield and Ellis, J. J., concur.
Reporter: Florida Reports
Volume: 82
Pages: 181–189

Head Matter:
Burnard Whitten, Plaintiff in Error, v. The State of Florida, Defendant in Error.
Opinion Filed August 12, 1921.
When a minor of apparent subnormal mentality, is without any notice of the charge of a crime against him, having been given to his parent or guardian as is required by the statute, put upon trial and convicted of murder in the first degree, and a consideration of the entire record indicates that justice requires a new trial wherein the essential requirements of law are complied with, the judgment of conviction will be reversed for appropriate proceedings.
A Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for DeSoto County ; George W. Whitehurst, Judge.
Reversed.
W. D. Bell, for Plaintiff in Error;
Rivers II. Buford, Attorney General, and J. B. Gaines, Assistant, for the State.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Burnard Whitten was convicted of murder in the first degree for the homicide of his wife and capital punishment was adjudged. A writ of error was taken.
The accused was shown to be under the age of twenty-one years. The provisions of Chapter 6221, Acts of 1911, were not complied with as to giving notice to parents or guardians of minors who are charged with crime. Without deciding whether the failure to give thé notice to parents or guardians, prior to the trial, as required by the' statute, was rendered immaterial by Chapter 7364, Acts', of 1917, removing the disabilities of male minors who have been married, or whether such failure to notify the parent or guardian constituted harmless error under Chapter 6223, Acts of 1911, and without determining whether the admission of evidence as to a confession of the accused was erroneous or whether such error, if any, was rendered immaterial by the defendant's own testimony, the court is of the opinion that upon a consideration of the entire record, and in view of the extreme penalty imposed, justice requires a new trial. When the defendant took the stand to testify, he was asked: "Q. You know what you are charged with here, don't you? A. Yes, sir. Q. What is it ? A. Charged with murder. Q. All right, tell this jury here, these twelve men, all about this affair. Tell them in your own language. ' ' The defendant's testimony indicates that he is perhaps not of normal mentality, which makes it important that he should have the assistance of his parent or guardian, if he has one, and the aid of careful counsel to conserve his defense to the extent at least of fully developing the mental responsibility of the accused and of showing mitigating circumstances, if any.
Eeversed for a new trial.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield and Ellis, J. J., concur.
West, J., dissents.