Matarranz v. State
| Decision Date | 26 September 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. SC11–1617.,SC11–1617. |
| Citation | 133 So.3d 473 |
| Parties | Rafael MATARRANZ, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Robert Kalter, Assistant Public Defender, Miami, FL, for Petitioner.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL; Richard L. Polin, Bureau Chief, and Douglas J. Glaid, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Miami, FL; for Respondent.
In his final remarks to the jury, Atticus Finch, the heroic protagonist of Harper Lee's iconic novel, To Kill a Mockingbird, proclaims
I'm no idealist to believe firmly in the integrity of our courts and in the jury system—that is no ideal to me, it is a living, working reality. Gentlemen, a court is no better than each man of you sitting before me on this jury. A court is only as sound as its jury, and a jury is only as sound as the men who make it up.
Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird, 205 (Warner Books, Inc., 1960). The case before us today addresses the very heart in which Atticus's faith roots—the integrity of our courts, the soundness of our juries, and the men and women who “make [them] up.” Id. The petitioner, Rafael Matarranz, seeks review of the decision of the Third District Court of Appeal in Matarranz v. State, 99 So.3d 534 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011), in which he alleges a violation of his due process rights occurred because his trial was not conducted before a fair and impartial tribunal of his peers. We have jurisdiction on the basis that the decision of the Third District expressly and directly conflicts with the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Huber v. State, 669 So.2d 1079 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), on a question of law. Seeart. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.
Maintaining the sanctity of the jury trial is both critical and integral to the preservation of a fair and honest judicial system. It is also significant to the trust and confidence our citizens place in the judicial system. “The jury is an essential instrumentality—an appendage—of the court, the body ordained to pass upon guilt or innocence.” Sinclair v. U.S., 279 U.S. 749, 765, 49 S.Ct. 471, 73 L.Ed. 938 (1929). Without the “[e]xercise of calm and informed judgment” by the jury, we cannot expect “proper enforcement of law.” Id. Consequently, a failure to ensure that our jury panels are comprised of only fair and impartial members renders suspect any verdict reached.
Matarranz, who was found guilty of first-degree murder and burglary, Matarranz, 99 So.3d at 534–35, alleges that the trial court's failure to remove a prospective juror (the Juror) for cause resulted in a denial of his right to a fair and impartial jury as guaranteed by article 1, section 16, of the Florida Constitution and the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The Third District disagreed with Matarranz and affirmed the decision of the trial court because the district court agreed that the Juror was competent to serve. See id. at 535.
Upon review, however, we disagree with the court below and hold that the Juror demonstrated that she could not fulfill her role as a fair and impartial arbiter and thus she should have been excused for cause. Accordingly, we quash the decision of the Third District, remand this case for a new trial, and clarify the law surrounding peremptory challenges and the removal of jurors for cause.
The entirety of the interactions between the trial court, the prosecutor, the defense, and the Juror are excerpted below.1 The trial court began voir dire by providing prospective jurors with a general overview of criminal trial procedures and stating the charges against the defendant. The trial court then asked whether any of the charges “makes any of you [prospective jurors] think that you just could not be a fair juror....” Along with other jurors, the Juror raised her hand and responded that she could not be a fair juror because of reservations she held with regard to the defendant's burglary charge.
Later, the trial court initiated questioning with the Juror and the following exchange transpired:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jackson v. State
...such reasonable doubt exists, the trial court should consider the context and entirety of the juror's responses. See Matarranz v. State , 133 So.3d 473, 484 (Fla. 2013) ; Kopsho , 959 So.2d at 170. A reviewing appellate court should ensure that the record provides support in the form of any......
-
Salazar v. State
...and requested more that were denied, and identify a specific juror that he or she would have excused if possible.’ " Matarranz v. State, 133 So.3d 473, 482 (Fla.2013) (quoting Kearse v. State, 770 So.2d 1119, 1128 (Fla.2000) ). And "[w]hen a trial court denies or grants a peremptory challen......
-
Hedvall v. State
...questions presented to him." Id. (emphasis added) (citations omitted). Further, the Florida Supreme Court explained in Matarranz v. State, 133 So. 3d 473, 489 (Fla. 2013) that[t]he true test of the fixedness of an opinion in the mind of a juror is not whether the opinion will readily yield ......
-
Cozzie v. State
...and requested more that were denied, and identify a specific juror that he or she would have excused if possible.' " Matarranz v. State, 133 So.3d 473, 482 (Fla. 2013) (quoting Kearse v. State, 770 So.2d 1119, 1128 (Fla. 2000) ). "[I]t is the objection/re-objection process ... that is the d......
-
The trial (conduct of trial, jury instructions, verdict)
...challenges for cause regarding jurors who indicate that they might be prejudiced against persons who commit crimes.) Matarranz v. State, 133 So. 3d 473 (Fla. 2013) The court has great discretion in deciding whether to grant or deny a challenge for cause based on juror competency, because th......
-
Preliminaries
...the same insurer involved in current action, and that if the evidence was “50/50,” he would likely favor motorist. Matarranz v. State , 133 So.3d 473, 489 (Fla. 2013). Trial court erred when it failed to apply Singer’s rule of law, which provides that, if there is a reasonable basis to doub......
-
The Preservation of Error During Voir Dire.
...(7) Kearse v. State, 770 So. 2d 1119, 1128 (Fla. 2000); Vega v. State, 781 So. 2d 1165, 1168 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). (8) Matarranz v. State, 133 So. 3d 473, 484 (Fla. 2013); see also James v. State, 731 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) ("If prospective juror's statements raise a reasonable doubt r......