City of Live Oak v. Townsend, s. 89-148
| Decision Date | 05 September 1990 |
| Docket Number | 89-621,Nos. 89-148,s. 89-148 |
| Citation | 567 So.2d 926 |
| Parties | 15 Fla. L. Weekly D2257 The CITY OF LIVE OAK, Florida, Appellant, v. Arlie K. TOWNSEND and Rossie Townsend, his wife, and Robert J. Sparks and Irma M. Sparks, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied Nov. 1, 1990.
Ernest Sellers and James W. Prevatt, Jr., of Airth, Sellers, Lewis, Decker & Prevatt, Live Oak, for appellant.
William L. Coalson, Jacksonville, for appellee/Townsend.
William J. Haley and Bruce G. Duncan, of Brannon, Brown, Haley, Robinson & Cole, P.A., Lake City, for appellee/Sparks.
Among the issues presented for our review in this consolidated appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying appellant's challenges for cause directed to certain prospective jurors in an eminent domain proceeding. Finding such an abuse of discretion, we reverse on this issue without reaching the other questions raised.
During voir dire examination, the attorney for the condemning authority, City of Live Oak, asked certain questions of prospective jurors designed to highlight any biases they may have toward the power of eminent domain, generally, and with respect to the facts of the case at hand, in particular. While perhaps not models of clarity, these questions dealt primarily with matters of full and just compensation and fair market value. The attorney stressed repeatedly that condemnees were entitled to receive full and just compensation or fair market value for their property. Questioning the prospective jurors individually, he asked them if they would award the affected landowners more than fair market value based on sentiment or because the landowners were reluctant to part with their property, etc.
Because of their responses to the questions asked, appellant's attorney lodged challenges for cause against prospective jurors Johnson, Allen, Gray, Merrill, Horne, Knosher, Bohannon and Carver. In each case, the trial court denied the challenge for cause, forcing the city to use its remaining peremptory challenges to excuse venirepersons Horne, Allen, Merrill and Gray. Before the jury was sworn, the attorney for the city unsuccessfully renewed his request that the above named prospective jurors be excused for cause because he was still dissatisfied with the composition of the jury about to be seated. Of those venirepersons the city tried to excuse for cause, Johnson, Knosher, Bohannon and Carver were seated as jurors.
Review of the record reflects that each of the prospective jurors challenged for cause should have been excused. Prospective juror Johnson made it clear he had a strongly fixed opinion that the landowner is entitled to something extra if his land was taken against his will. He would give the landowner something extra even if the judge told him that would be improper.
Juror Knosher felt that the landowner should be compensated for inconvenience whether or not the law provided for recovery for inconvenience. Juror Bohannon expressed the view that she would vote to compensate the landowner an extra amount because...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Somerville v. Ahuja, 5D04-1688.
...Plair v. State, 453 So.2d 917 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); 12. See James v. State, 736 So.2d 1260 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); City of Live Oak v. Townsend, 567 So.2d 926 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). 13. See Kearse v. State, 770 So.2d 1119 (Fla. 2000); Durocher v. State, 596 So.2d 997 (Fla. 14. See Busby v. State,......
-
MISSISSIPPI TRANSP. COMM. v. Highland Dev. LLC
...question him as to the possibility or the depth of his potential prejudice. Id. at 1229. ¶ 33. MTC also cites City of Live Oak v. Townsend, 567 So.2d 926 (Fla.Dist.Ct. App.1990) in which similar questions were posed during voir dire, but the potential jurors were more adamant and zealous ab......
-
Bulkmatic Transport Co. v. Taylor
...Auriemme to the extent that it was in conflict with its decision). In contrast to the foregoing decisions, in City of Live Oak v. Townsend, 567 So.2d 926, 927 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), which appellee relies upon, this Court noted that, because of the responses to the questions asked during voir ......
-
Sanchez v. GEICO Indem. Co.
...would have informed his decision. Matarranz , 133 So. 3d at 484. As we expressed the overarching principle in City of Live Oak v. Townsend , 567 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) :The sine qua non of our system of trial by jury is that juries should be comprised of fair and impartial members w......
-
Back to the future: how Rodriguez v. Lagomasino got it right in 2008 and why modern voir dire should be guided by 1929's Johnson v. Reynolds.
...to the swearing of jury, because the initial objection was made moments prior to the swearing of the jury); City of Live Oak v. Townsend, 567 So. 2d 926, 928 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1990) (because the city was required to use its remaining peremptory challenges to excuse four prospective jurors wh......