Irby v. State
| Decision Date | 30 August 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. AP-399,AP-399 |
| Citation | 436 So.2d 1047 |
| Parties | Robert William IRBY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Charlene V. Edwards, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Andrew Thomas, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant is an inmate at the Union Correctional Institution and was found guilty, after a jury trial, of battery on a correctional officer at the Union facility. We agree with appellant's contention that Union correctional officers whom appellant challenged "for cause" should have been excused from jury service; we therefore reverse the judgment and sentence appealed.
The jury venire in this case included several Union correctional officers, each of whom appellant challenged for cause. In response to questioning by counsel and the court, each correctional officer asserted that he would impartially decide the case solely on the facts presented. The court denied appellant's challenges for cause, and appellant then utilized his peremptory challenges. After the peremptory challenges were exhausted one officer remained on the jury which resolved conflicting testimony, presented by appellant and the alleged victim, and found appellant guilty of the offense charged. The various correctional officers whom appellant challenged serve in related institutional facilities, and in the same general employment capacity, 1 as the alleged victim.
Article I, § 16, Fla. Const., provides that:
In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall ... have a speedy and public trial by impartial jury ....
Section 913.03(10), Florida Statutes, provides that a jury may be challenged "for cause" if possessed of "a state of mind ... that will prevent him from acting with impartiality ...." The statute also indicates that, despite a juror's predisposition, "if he declares and the court determines that he can render an impartial verdict" the juror shall not be excused "for cause."
The fairness of a proceeding and the impartiality of a jury are not necessarily impaired because a juror is placed in a potentially compromising situation (see Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 102 S.Ct. 940, 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982)), and a trial court has broad discretion regarding determinations of juror bias. See Hawthorne v. State, 399 So.2d 1088 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). We conclude, however, that the circumstances of the present case raise both an appearance and a substantial probability of inherent juror bias, in a trial for an alleged offense against a person in the course of employment involving unusual personal risks identical to those shared by the challenged jurors. Pursuant to § 913.03(10), therefore, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mobil Chemical Co., a Div. of Mobil Corp. v. Hawkins
...her ability to render a fair and impartial verdict to the defendant that a challenge for cause should be granted. See Irby v. State, 436 So.2d 1047 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). The motion for rehearing or certification is BOOTH and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur. ...
-
State v. Williams
...the trial judge denied the challenge for cause. The district court of appeal reversed, relying on its prior opinion in Irby v. State, 436 So.2d 1047 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), review denied, 447 So.2d 888 (Fla.1984). It had concluded in Irby that "the circumstances of the present case raise both ......
-
State v. Irby
...888 447 So.2d 888 State v. Irby (Robert William) NO. 64435 Supreme Court of Florida. MAR 22, 1984 Appeal From: 1st DCA 436 So.2d 1047 Pet. for rev. ...
-
Williams v. State, AR-162
...and a related penal institution called as prospective jurors in the trial of his case. We reverse on the authority of Irby v. State, 436 So.2d 1047 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). The disputed issues in this case turned on the credibility of the correction officers involved in the altercation with app......