Maio v. State, 87-2416
| Decision Date | 11 October 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-2416,87-2416 |
| Citation | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2314,531 So.2d 1055 |
| Parties | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2314 Michael J. MAIO, 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.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Julie S. Thornton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, DANIEL S. PEARSON and JORGENSON, JJ.
In Verreautt v. State, 411 So.2d 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), we held that a defendant who was entitled to ten peremptory challenges by virtue of being charged with a life felony, but who did not timely object when the trial court mistakenly limited him to six challenges, failed to preserve this error for appeal. We distinguished Verreautt's inaction from (a) the action of the defendant in Newsome v. State, 355 So.2d 483 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), whose attempt to exercise a seventh challenge was held to have adequately preserved for appeal the same error, and (b) the inaction of the defendant in Bell v. State, 338 So.2d 1328 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976), whose failure to attempt to exercise a seventh peremptory challenge was excused because attributable to the trial court's definitive ruling that six was the legal limit, thus rendering futile any further effort to obtain additional challenges. In the present case we are faced with Maio's contention that his action/inaction after having exercised only six of a possible ten peremptory challenges should be considered more like that of Newsome and Bell than that of Verreautt and that, therefore, he should be awarded a new trial. We reject his contention and affirm.
As the jury selection process was drawing to a close, defense counsel peremptorily challenged a Ms. Barnett. The following colloquy transpired:
(emphasis supplied).
The prosecutor then accepted the next juror, which completed the selection of the six-person panel:
(emphasis supplied).
We think a fair reading of the colloquy is that defense counsel's effort to peremptorily challenge Ms. Barnett plainly was not an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dante v. State, 3D03-3239.
...So.2d at 1329 (quoting Bailey v. State, 224 So.2d 296 (Fla.1969)). Accord Birge v. State, 92 So.2d 819 (Fla.1957). In Maio v. State, 531 So.2d 1055 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), we affirmed the defendant's conviction for a life felony. A review of the record revealed that "defense counsel remained si......
-
Dante v. State, Case No. 3D03-3239 (FL 3/23/2005), Case No. 3D03-3239.
...DISPOSED OF. 1. We are aware of this Court's decisions in Enamorado v. State, 733 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), Maio v. State, 531 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), and Verreautt v. State, 411 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), review denied, 418 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 1982). In these cases, the def......
- Sumpter v. State, 87-1969