Denmark v. State, 92-3727
| Decision Date | 24 February 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-3727,92-3727 |
| Citation | 656 So.2d 166 |
| Parties | 20 Fla. L. Weekly D490 John DENMARK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
John Denmark, pro se.
Bill Salmon, Gainesville, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., James W. Rogers, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., Office of the Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.
John Denmark appeals his conviction for aggravated assault of his mother with a firearm. We affirm all issues raised and address only two. In the first, Denmark asserts reversible error because a juror was allowed to serve who was the father of the deputy sheriff who investigated the incident, filed the complaint against Denmark, and testified against him at trial. Under section 913.03(9), Florida Statutes (1989), 1 Denmark's counsel could have challenged the juror for cause, yet, after questioning the juror about his impartiality, did not do so. See, e.g., Polynice v. State, 568 So.2d 1346 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Denmark thus waived this issue for appeal by failing to challenge the juror for cause before the jury was sworn. State v. Rodgers, 347 So.2d 610 (Fla.1977); Ex parte Sullivan, 155 Fla. 111, 19 So.2d 611 (1944). We therefore affirm, without prejudice to Denmark's right to raise this issue in a post-conviction motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. See, e.g., Russell v. State, 521 So.2d 379 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).
The next issue requiring comment is that claiming an irregularity in the rendition of the verdict, because the name of the foreperson who signed the verdict form does not appear in the trial transcript as a member of the jury. This court relinquished jurisdiction to permit the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing regarding the question. After a thorough investigation, the court found that the same six people who were impanelled as jurors heard the case and returned the verdict, and that substandard court reporting resulted in an erroneous transcription of the foreperson's name. 2 We are satisfied with the trial court's findings and therefore conclude that Denmark has failed to demonstrate reversible error. In so deciding, we observe that courts have repeatedly adhered to the requirement of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.570, 3 providing that an objection to any irregularity in a verdict must be raised while the jury is still in court. See, e.g., Whilden v. State, 301 So.2d 35 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Pineiro v. State, 615 So.2d 801 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Wolfram v. State, 568 So.2d 992 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Denmark thus waived any challenge to the verdict.
AFFIRMED.
1 That statute enumerates twelve grounds for challenging a juror for cause, including:
(9) The juror is related by blood or marriage...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ogden v. State, 94-621
...111, 19 So.2d 611 (1944); Jenkins v. State, 380 So.2d 1042 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 389 So.2d 1111 (Fla.1980); Denmark v. State, 656 So.2d 166 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) . Moreover, no fundamental error has been shown on this record as it is clear that the subject juror was fully qualified und......
-
Smith v. State
...further discussion that the first issue was affirmatively waived for appeal and did not involve fundamental error. See Denmark v. State, 656 So.2d 166 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). On the second issue, the trial court gave an inapplicable jury instruction and misread another instruction and, in so d......
-
Judah v. State, 93-2954
...Scurry as "questionable." The six jurors were selected and were duly sworn without an objection from defense counsel. Denmark v. State, 656 So.2d 166 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (waiver of issue where counsel failed to challenge juror for cause before jury was The purpose of preserving alleged erro......
-
James v. State, 4D12–3374.
...no abuse here. “[A]n objection to any irregularity in a verdict must be raised while the jury is still in court.” Denmark v. State, 656 So.2d 166, 167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) ; see Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.570. This is because a timely objection allows the trial court to have the jury further conside......
-
The Preservation of Error During Voir Dire.
...juror should be excused."). (9) Four Wood Consulting, LLC v. Fyne, 981 So. 2d 2, 5 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). (10) Denmark v. State, 656 So. 2d 166, 166 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (party waived his forcause challenge on appeal by failing to raise it before the jury was sworn); see also Jackson v. State,......