Miller v. State
Citation | 785 So.2d 662 |
Decision Date | 09 May 2001 |
Docket Number | No. 3D99-2851.,3D99-2851. |
Parties | Andros Domonic MILLER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Bruce A. Rosenthal, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Erin K. Zack, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before COPE, GODERICH, and RAMIREZ, JJ.
Andros Domonic Miller appeals his conviction and sentence for attempted trafficking in cocaine, possession of cocaine, and carrying a concealed firearm. We reverse because the trial court abused its discretion in severely limiting defense counsel's right to conduct individual voir dire as authorized under rule 3.300, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.
The trial court conducted its own extensive voir dire examination of the jury panel and the prosecution followed with its own lengthy questioning. Minutes into the defense counsel's examination, the trial court interrupted to instruct him that the court had already questioned the jurors regarding the jurors' ability to accept the presumption of innocence, the State's burden of proof, and Miller's right to remain silent. Counsel was ordered not to inquire into any of these areas.1
Rule 3.300(b) provides that the court may examine prospective jurors individually or collectively. The rule also provides that Consistent with this rule, we hold that the trial court cannot question prospective jurors on such crucial areas as the presumption of innocence, burden of proof and the right to silence, then prevent counsel from further individual examination under the guise that it would be repetitive. See Sanders v. State, 707 So.2d 664, 668 (Fla.1998)
("Even though trial judges may question prospective jurors, their role in jury selection must not impair counsel's right and duty to question the venire."); Ferrer v. State, 718 So.2d 822, 825 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) ().
Voir dire is the first opportunity the attorneys have to establish personal contact with prospective jurors and the only occasion they have to enter into a dialogue with jurors. Prospective jurors do not respond in the same manner to inquiry by a judge as they do to questions by counsel, particularly when the trial court asks the jurors to volunteer a response to collective examination.2 It is widely recognized that the trial court may not impose arbitrary time limits on voir dire. See O'Hara v. State, 642 So.2d 592, 593-94 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
() ; Zitnick v. State, 576 So.2d 1381-82 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) ( ); Pineda v. State, 571 So.2d 105, 106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Gosha v. State, 534 So.2d 912 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Similarly, the trial court may not deny defense counsel an opportunity to question jurors individually. See Francis v. State, 579 So.2d 286 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). The trial court in this case effectively denied individual questioning of the prospective jurors by covering the most important areas of inquiry and then forbidding defense counsel from further exploration.3
In Miller v. State, 683 So.2d 600 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), the Second District was also confronted with the trial court's limiting restrictions on voir dire. The judge had asked the venire several preliminary general questions, including whether the prospective jurors would follow the law as instructed by the judge. Id. at 601. When defense counsel began to inquire into the same area, the judge prevented any further questions. Id. The district court first recognized that the trial judge had considerable discretion in this area, but that discretion had to be exercised in light of rule 3.300(b), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Id. at 602. The district court stated as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Waterhouse Const. Group v. 5891 Sw 64TH St.
... ... 3d DCA 2001); Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Universal Employment Agency, 664 So.2d 1107, 1108 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Middleton, 648 So.2d 1200, 1201-02 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Lapidus v. Arlen Beach Condo. Ass'n, 394 So.2d 1102, 1103 (Fla. 3d DCA ... ...
-
Mendez v. State
...trial court asks the jurors to volunteer a response to collective examination. See, e.g., Campbell, 812 So.2d at 543; Miller v. State, 785 So.2d 662, 664 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Miller, 683 So.2d at We do not suggest that trial judges do not have considerable discretion in controlling and limit......
-
Carver v. Niedermayer
...turning over the questioning to counsel does not, in and of itself, justify such limits on counsel's voir dire. In Miller v. State, 785 So.2d 662 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), the court "the trial court cannot question prospective jurors on such crucial areas as the presumption of innocence, burden o......
-
Harrison v. State
...response to a judge's question may be different than if asked by one of the attorneys to explain their belief”); Miller v. State, 785 So.2d 662, 663–64 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (finding that the trial court “abused its discretion in severely limiting defense counsel's right to conduct individual ......
-
Back to the future: how Rodriguez v. Lagomasino got it right in 2008 and why modern voir dire should be guided by 1929's Johnson v. Reynolds.
...due to his/her status as a law enforcement officer and that she would evaluate the case on the evidence presented. (7) Miller v. State, 785 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. (8) See Carver v. Niedermayer, 920 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 2006) ("We conclude from the record in this case that the tri......
-
Annual survey of fidelity and surety law, 2001.
...785 So. 2d 660 (Fla. App. 2001). (17.) Citing Lapidus v. Arlen Beach Condominium Ass'n, 394 So. 2d 1102, 1103 (Fla. App. 1995). (18.) 785 So .2d at 662, citing Matrix Constr. Corp. v. Mecca Constr. Inc., 578 So. 2d 388, 389 (Fla. App. (19.) 628 N.W. 2d 11 (Iowa 2001 (20.) 262 B.R. 638 (Bkrt......