Leon v. State
| Decision Date | 24 February 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-51,79-51 |
| Citation | 396 So.2d 203 |
| Parties | Antonio Bernardo LEON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Elliot H. Scherker, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Paul Mendelson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before HUBBART, C. J., and NESBITT, J. and MELVIN, WOODROW M. (Ret.), Associate Judge.
The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in refusing to excuse a juror for cause. Finding that it did, we reverse the defendant's judgment of conviction and remand for a new trial.
The defendant was charged by information with burglary and grand theft. He entered a plea of not guilty and demanded a trial by jury. During the voir dire, one of the prospective jurors stated that her home previously had been burglarized. The record reveals the following voir dire of that prospective juror:
Then the court undertook to examine the prospective juror:
Defense counsel then challenged the prospective juror for cause. At that point he had used three of six peremptory challenges. 1 Before ruling on the challenge, the trial court allowed the prosecutor to additionally voir dire the prospective juror and the following occurred:
The court then re-examined this prospective juror as follows:
At the conclusion of the court's examination the court denied the challenge for cause stating:
I will not discharge her for cause. She has not indicated that she has a predisposition or a feeling that she cannot control during the course of the testimony.
During subsequent voir dire examination, defense counsel continued to voir dire the prospective juror who then acknowledged defendant's presumption of innocence and the state's burden of establishing the defendant's guilt beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. When again asked if she could find the defendant not guilty if the state failed in its burden, this prospective juror candidly responded: "I don't know." When a similar question was later put to her, she responded: "No, not if it cannot be proved." Later, after the denial of the challenge for cause, this juror ultimately stated that she could "be fair."
The initial determination of a juror's competence for cause lies within the discretion of a trial court, Singer v. State, 109 So.2d 7, 22 (Fla.1959); Ashley v. State, 370 So.2d 1191 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). This discretion, however, is not unlimited.
At stake is the party's right guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to an impartial jury; the principal way this right is implemented is through the system of challenges exercised during the voir dire of prospective jurors.... Although a trial court has broad discretion in its conduct of voir dire, ... its exercise of that discretion is "subject to the essential demands of fairness." (citations omitted)
United States v. Nell, 526 F.2d 1223, 1229 (5th Cir. 1976).
The test for determining the competence of a juror is not whether he will be able to control any bias or prejudice but rather whether he may lay aside those considerations and render his verdict solely upon the evidence presented and the instructions on the law given to him by the court. Singer v. State, supra; McCullers v. State, 143 So.2d 909 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962), cert. dismissed, 155 So.2d 696 (Fla.1963); § 913.03(10), Fla.Stat. (1979). Where there is any reasonable doubt as to a juror's possessing the requisite state of mind so as to render an impartial verdict, the juror...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Busby v. State
...peremptory challenges and an additional challenge is sought and denied. See Singer[ v. State, 109 So.2d 7 (Fla.1959)]; Leon v. State, 396 So.2d 203 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). See also Wasko v. Frankel, 116 Ariz. 288, 569 P.2d 230 (Ariz.1977); Jones v. Cloud, 119 Ga.App. 697, 168 S.E.2d 598 (1969);......
-
Somerville v. Ahuja, 5D04-1688.
...Inc., 514 So.2d 426 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Sikes v. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co., 487 So.2d 1118 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Leon v. State, 396 So.2d 203 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). 4. See Busby v. State, 894 So.2d 88 (Fla.2004); Williams v. State, 638 So.2d 976 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). 5. See Lusk v. State, 446 S......
-
Cook v. State
...in numerous cases involving challenges for cause based upon a juror's possible bias or prejudice. See, e.g., Singer; Leon v. State, 396 So.2d 203 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 407 So.2d 1106 (Fla.1981). In these cases, the issue is raised either when the juror admits to having a bias or voi......
-
Noe v. State
...1229 (Fla.1985); Tenon v. State, 545 So.2d 382 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Graham v. State, 470 So.2d 97 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); and Leon v. State, 396 So.2d 203 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 407 So.2d 1106 (Fla.1981). Where the record reflects a reasonable doubt as to whether a challenged juror can ......