Caldwell v. State
| Decision Date | 14 January 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D09-1734.,2D09-1734. |
| Citation | 50 So.3d 1234 |
| Parties | William Henry CALDWELL, IV, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Steven L. Bolotin, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Joseph H. Lee, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
William Henry Caldwell, IV, appeals his convictions for felony murder and armed burglary. We reverse for the reason explained below and remand for a new trial.
Caldwell argues on appeal that during jury selection, the trial court improperly denied his cause challenge to a potential juror (Juror E), who questioned why a person would not want to testify in his defense. Caldwell claims that Juror E's comments raised a reasonable doubt as to her ability to be impartial and that she was not rehabilitated by the State.
The following discussion occurred during voir dire:
DEFENSE COUNSEL:.... Now another principle that we need to discuss is the idea of a person['s] not testifying in their own trial. Okay? How do you feel about that ... ?
After discussing with several jurors the right to not testify, defense counsel stated:
The State then objected, and a sidebar conference was held, during which the trial court overruled the State's objection. The following continued before the prospective jurors:
Defense counsel then discussed the issue with other jurors and further explained the right to remain silent. Juror E was not again addressed on this issue, and she posed no additional questions.
During the selection process, defense counsel challenged Juror E for cause, stating that "she didn't indicate that she could accept the idea of a person who was—a defendant not testifying." After an objection by the State, the trial court denied the challenge, stating "I don't have a note on that either." Defense counsel then used a peremptory strike on Juror E and requested more peremptory strikes, identifying three jurors he wished to strike. The trial court denied defense counsel's request for more peremptory strikes. One of the objectionable jurors served on the jury. Caldwell renewed the objection before the jury was sworn.
We first note that defense counsel properly preserved the issue for appeal and that Caldwell has demonstrated that if an error exists, it requires reversal. See Carratelli v. State, 961 So.2d 312, 318-19 (Fla.2007) ().
We now decide whether the trial court improperly denied Caldwell's cause challenge to Juror E. " '[A] juror must be excused for cause if any reasonable doubt exists as to whether the juror possesses an impartial state of mind.' " Overton v. State, 801 So.2d 877, 890 (Fla.2001) (quoting Kearse v. State, 770 So.2d 1119, 1128 (Fla.2000)). A trial court has broad discretion in determining whether to grant a challenge for cause. Id. Close cases should be resolved in favor of excusing the juror. See Thomas v. State, 958 So.2d 1047, 1050 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). Specifically applicable to this case is "the premise that the presumption of innocence is defeated if 'a juror is taken upon a trial whose mind is in such condition that the accused must produce evidence of his innocence to avoid a conviction.' " Overton, 801 So.2d at 891 (quoting Singer v. State, 109 So.2d 7, 24 (Fla.1959)).
In Mitchell v. State, 862 So.2d 908, 911 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), one potential juror testified that "although she knew that the defendant had a right not to testify, it 'probably' would cross her mind if he did not." A second potential juror testified that "he would 'wonder why they didn't get up there and tell their story.' " Id. Although the trial court then gave an instruction on the absolute right to not testify, the second juror said that his feelings had not changed. A third juror stated that "she would probably question why someone who was not guilty 'wouldn't want to perhaps tell their side of the story.' " Id. Then, a fourth juror said that the third juror "expressed [his] sentiments exactly." Id. The defense challenged all four potential jurors for cause, and the trial court denied the challenge as to potential jurors one, two, and four. The defense used peremptory challenges on those jurors.
On appeal, the court held that juror two should have been stricken for cause because his responses "reflected doubt about this ability to set aside his conjecture as to why the defendant did not testify[ ] and that despite the instructions from the trial judge, his feelings did not change." Id. The court also recognized juror four's comment about "why someone innocently charged with a crime would not want to testify." Id. The court held that "[a]ll of these comments create more than a reasonable doubt about these jurors' ability to be fair and impartial[ ] and, therefore, [that] the court erred in denying [defendant's] challenge for cause as to" jurors two and four. Id. at 911-12.
Here, even after defense counsel informed the potential jurors that a defendant has an absolute right to not testify, Juror E stated that she did not understand why somebody would not want the opportunity to speak the truth. When asked by defense counsel why someone might not want to testify, Juror E stated "[u]nless they are guilty." As in Mitchell, Juror E's comments created a reasonable doubt regarding her ability to be fair and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fortune v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
...be excused for cause if any reasonable doubt exists as to whether the juror possesses an impartial state of mind.'" Caldwell v. State, 50 So. 3d 1234, 1237 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (quoting Overton v. State, 801 So. 2d 877, 890 (Fla. 2001)). In the instant case, a record was made of the names of ......
-
Welch v. State
...of jurors cannot depend on whether an accused criminal defendant will waive the right to remain silent. See, e.g., Caldwell v. State, 50 So.3d 1234, 1236–38 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (holding that unrehabilitated prospective juror who opined during voir dire that criminal defendants would want to ......
-
The trial (conduct of trial, jury instructions, verdict)
...of cases regarding jurors during voir dire making comments about the reasons for a defendant not testifying.) Caldwell v. State, 50 So. 3d 1234 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) A trial judge is not prohibited from using hypotheticals that properly explain the law. However, due care must be taken in order......