Jenkins v. State, 97-3877.
Decision Date | 28 April 1999 |
Docket Number | No. 97-3877.,97-3877. |
Citation | 732 So.2d 1185 |
Parties | Sie JENKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert L. Bogen of Law Offices of Robert L. Bogen, Boca Raton, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Sarah B. Mayer, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
We affirm appellant Sie Jenkins's conviction of trafficking in cocaine and write to address one issue raised on appeal.
After the trial, Jenkins moved for a new trial and for a jury interview. A ground for both motions was the conduct of appellant's wife, Willie Ann Jenkins, who signed an affidavit in support of the motion for jury interview. In pertinent part, the affidavit stated:
The motion for new trial alleged that the wife had said that she knew appellant was guilty. The trial court denied the motions for new trial and for jury interview. It appears that the court ruled on the basis that appellant waived his right to object on these grounds. An evidentiary basis for such a waiver does not appear in this record. The wife's affidavit skirts the issue by stating "I am not sure that Sie heard these things." We remand for an evidentiary hearing. First, the court should determine whether, at the trial, appellant had knowledge of his wife's conduct in the presence of the jury venire, either because he was within earshot during all or part of the tirade, or because someone told him about it. It is unclear from the affidavit how appellant's wife "loudly admonished" him in a way that the jury panel could hear but appellant could not. If appellant knew of conduct potentially affecting the jury, but failed to timely bring it to the trial court's attention, the incident may not be raised as a ground for new trial or for a jury interview. See Rooney v. Hannon, 732 So.2d 408 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
. The line of authority followed in Rooney requires a party who learns of acts potentially impacting the jurors to advise the court as soon as possible. Such a requirement is not unfair, since improper contact with a jury venire is not a subtle issue; even a lay defendant can appreciate the problem of his wife screaming about his marital infidelities or guilt in front of potential jurors.
In Rooney, we identified the rationales behind the requirement that a party timely object to conduct affecting a jury to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bush v. State
...for the letters being given to the jury; she therefore waived her objection to their submission. See, e.g., Jenkins v. State, 732 So.2d 1185, 1187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) ("If appellant knew of the problem at the time [the extrinsic evidence was given to jury], his failure to call it to the cou......
- Sears v. State, 5D04-479.
-
Miles v. State, 4D00-2165.
...reject them here as well. AFFIRMED. GUNTHER and WARNER, JJ., concur. 1. The third, if he did exist, was not found. 2. Jenkins v. State, 732 So.2d 1185 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) confirmed the applicability of Maler in criminal ...
-
Williams v. State, 1D00-5087.
...to gather information outside of the record. See Gould v. State, 745 So.2d 354, 358 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Jenkins v. State, 732 So.2d 1185, 1187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Nor do the affidavits indicate that the jurors lied or provided incomplete information during voir dire. See Young v. State, 7......