Case Name: Charles E. SMITH, as Municipal Judge of the Municipal Court of the City of Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida, Petitioner, v. Robert Ross DAVIS, Respondent
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1970-02-04
Citations: 231 So. 2d 517
Docket Number: No. 39115
Parties: Charles E. SMITH, as Municipal Judge of the Municipal Court of the City of Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida, Petitioner, v. Robert Ross DAVIS, Respondent.
Judges: ROBERTS and CARLTON, JJ„ and SCHULZ, Circuit Judge, concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 231
Pages: 517–518

Head Matter:
Charles E. SMITH, as Municipal Judge of the Municipal Court of the City of Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida, Petitioner, v. Robert Ross DAVIS, Respondent.
No. 39115.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Feb. 4, 1970.
Rehearing Denied March 4, 1970.
Gordon B. Johnston and James T. Vocelle of Vocelle & Gallagher, Vero Beach, for petitioner.
L. B. Vocelle, Vero Beach, C. Wendell Harris, Merritt Island and C. E. Thompson, Cocoa Beach, for respondent.
Allison E. Folds, Gainesville, of Fagan, Crouch, Anderson & Folds, as amicus curiae.

Opinion:
DREW, Justice.
This case is here for review on a Petition for Certiorari accompanied by a certificate of the District Court that the decision is one which passes on a question of great public interest.
The sole question argued here and the one certified here by the district court is:
"Is a person charged with driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor to the extent that his normal faculties were impaired, as a violation of a municipal ordinance, entitled to a trial by jury for such violation."
The district court answered this question in the affirmative. Judge Reed, in an able dissenting opinion reached a contrary result. We are of the view that Judge Reed correctly decided the question presented to that court and the question certified here. Moreover we are in complete accord with the reasons pronounced by him in reaching the conclusion he did. We, therefore, adopt his opinion as the decision of this Court.
The questioned decision is quashed and the cause remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent herewith.
ROBERTS and CARLTON, JJ" and SCHULZ, Circuit Judge, concur.
ERVIN, C. J., dissents with opinion:
. Davis v. Smith, 227 So.2d 342 (4th Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1969).
. Fla.Const. art. Y, § 4(2), F.S.A.
. See Judge Feed's dissenting opinion, 227 So.2d beginning on page 344.