O'Hara v. State, 93-3451
| Decision Date | 24 August 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-3451,93-3451 |
| Citation | 642 So.2d 592 |
| Parties | 19 Fla. L. Weekly D1793 Brian Joseph O'HARA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jeffrey H. Garland of Kirschner & Garland, P.A., Fort Pierce, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and John Tiedemann, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Brian O'Hara appeals his convictions for battery on a law enforcement officer, resisting an officer without violence, disorderly conduct, and assault. He complains that the trial court abused its discretion in limiting voir dire examination. We agree and reverse for a new trial.
Tom Clyde, a neighbor of Mr. O'Hara, notified the police that Mr. O'Hara aimed his moving truck at Clyde's fourteen year old son. Upon arriving at Mr. O'Hara's home, Police Officer Lamm attempted to speak with Mr. O'Hara. Mr. O'Hara, yelling out some obscenities, ordered the officer off his property. The officer tried to explain that he was conducting a criminal investigation and asked him to cooperate. Mr. O'Hara walked away from the officer. As a result, the officer followed. Mr. O'Hara turned to the officer and stated The officer attempted to arrest him and Mr. O'Hara took his elbows and shoved the officer. Upon his arrest, he was charged with battery on law enforcement officer, resisting an officer without violence, disorderly conduct and aggravated assault.
Prior to voir dire, the trial court advised the attorneys that their examination of all twenty-four prospective jurors was limited to forty minutes per side. Defense counsel objected to the limitation because he had many First Amendment questions that he wanted to ask the jurors. The trial court denied the objection. Upon interviewing the prospective jurors for forty minutes, defense counsel asked for an extension of time which was denied. Due to this fact, defense counsel was unable to ask basic general questions of many of the prospective jurors.
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.300(b) provides for a reasonable voir dire examination of prospective jurors by counsel. The purpose of voir dire is to ensure a fair and impartial jury. A trial court abuses its discretion when the imposition of unreasonable time limitations or limitations on the number of questions results in the loss of this fundamental right. Compare Zitnick v. State, 576 So.2d 1381 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); James v. State, 575 So.2d 335 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Pineda v. State, 571 So.2d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Gosha v. State, 534 So.2d 912 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Williams v. State, 424 So.2d 148 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) with Valdez v. State, 585 So.2d 479 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Brunson v. State, 492 So.2d 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Stano v. State, 473 So.2d 1282 (Fla.1985).
Under the facts in this case, the trial court abused its discretion in limiting voir dire questioning to less than two minutes per prospective juror. The foregoing limitation of voir dire questioning prevented defense counsel from asking pertinent questions about the First Amendment as well as basic general questions.
Having determined that Mr. O'Hara is entitled to a new trial, we briefly address some of the issues raised by him to give guidance to the trial court on remand. During the trial, Mr. O'Hara's attorney was not allowed to question the state's witness, Tom Clyde, about Mr. O'Hara's calls to the police on several occasions regarding problems he was having with Clyde's children. Because defense counsel is entitled to explore the prior dealings between defendant and the state's witness which might show bias, prejudice, or improper motive, it was error to limit the questioning of this witness. Hannah v. State, 432 So.2d 631 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). On retrial, defense counsel is entitled to a thorough examination of the witness.
The other pertinent issue concerns the jury instructions. Mr. O'Hara felt the standard...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Edmonds v. Commonwealth, No. 2007-SC-000350-MR (Ky. 11/25/2009)
...to question entire panel, leaving approximately 30 seconds perjuror to individually question 60 venire members); OHara v. State. 642 So.2d 592 (Fla. Dist. Ct.App. 1994) (abuse of discretion to limit voir dire of 24 jurors to 40 minutes); State v. Williams, 860 P.2d 860, 863 (Or. Ct. App. 19......
-
Watson v. State, 96-01270
...impartial jury may, and in this case did occur and we are obligated to correct it on appeal. Wilson, 676 So.2d at 1001; O'Hara v. State, 642 So.2d 592 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Pineda, 571 So.2d at 106; Gosha v. State, 534 So.2d 912 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Williams, 424 So.2d at The state contends t......
-
Jones v. State
...stealing, an incident which supplied a vengeful motive for the eyewitness' identification of the defendant. See also O'Hara v. State, 642 So.2d 592, 594 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Harmon v. State, 394 So.2d 121, 124-25 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Fannin v. State, 581 So.2d 974, 976 (Fla. 1st DCA To intr......
-
Ferrer v. State
...v. Michigan Mut. Life Ins. Co., 111 Ind. 59, 12 N.E. 98, 99 (1887)); Perry v. State, 675 So.2d 976 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); O'Hara v. State, 642 So.2d 592 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Pineda v. State, 571 So.2d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA We conclude that the procedures used by this trial judge unreasonably inhib......
-
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.
...abuse of discretion to limit counsel's voir dire examinations of each potential juror to one-to-three minutes"). (9) See O Hara v. State, 642 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. (10) Mendez v. State, 898 So. 2d 1141, 1143 (Fla. 5th D.C.A. 2005) (quotation and citation omitted). (11) Perry v. State,......
-
The Preservation of Error During Voir Dire.
...v. Niedermayer, 920 So. 2d 123, 124 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). (48) Thomany v. State, 252 So. 3d 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018); O'Hara v. State, 642 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). However, note that if the court is going to set a time limit, it must do so at the outset. Rodriguez v. State, 675 So. 2d ......