Hall v. State, 76-1726
| Decision Date | 03 August 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-1726,76-1726 |
| Citation | 348 So.2d 932 |
| Parties | Eddie Lee HALL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jack O. Johnson, Public Defender, and Robert H. Grizzard, II, Asst. Public Defender, and Paul C. Helm, Legal Intern, Bartow, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Davis G. Anderson, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
The only issue meriting discussion is whether, for the purposes of the speedy trial rule, a trial commences when the prospective jurors have been sworn for examination of their qualifications to act as jurors for the week but are not seated for voir dire in the particular trial. The case of State v. May, 332 So.2d 146 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), answered this question in the negative. We agree. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191(a)(3).
In the instant case it appears that on the last day of the speedy trial period, the first day of the trial week, prospective jurors were sworn to examine their qualifications to serve for the week. None were seated for voir dire in this specific case. The next day appellant's motion for discharge was filed, heard and erroneously denied. The speedy trial time had run. Appellant was, and is, entitled to discharge.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stuart v. State
...trial, and a prospective trial jury is not called and seated for voir dire in the particular case, citing Maines. Accord Hall v. State, 348 So.2d 932 (Fla.2d DCA 1977). II. Unlike the trial court, the district court implicitly recognized that the trial was not commenced prior to the expirat......
-
Moore v. State
...of Criminal Procedure 3.191(a)(3) a trial commences when a jury panel is sworn for voir dire in a specific trial. See Hall v. State, 348 So.2d 932 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); State v. May, 332 So.2d 146 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), Cert. denied, 339 So.2d 1172 (Fla.1976); State ex rel. Maines v. Baker, 254 ......
-
Moore v. State, 77-532
...more sensible conclusion than we do now. Their opinion is that the defendant in such circumstances should be discharged: Hall v. State, 348 So.2d 932 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977) and State v. May, 332 So.2d 146 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1976) cert. den. 339 So.2d 1172 (Fla.1977). 1 However, we feel compelled aft......