Moore v. State, 69496
Decision Date | 26 May 1988 |
Docket Number | No. 69496,69496 |
Citation | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 347,525 So.2d 870 |
Parties | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 347 Alton MOORE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
May L. Cain, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, North Miami, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Ralph Barreira, Asst. Atty. Gen., Miami, for appellee.
Alton Moore appeals his convictions for first-degree murder and armed burglary. The trial judge imposed the death sentence on the murder conviction in accordance with the jury's recommendation. He also imposed a life sentence for armed burglary and a five-year sentence for possessing a weapon while engaged in a felony. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. The appellant's primary defense was mental competency at the time of the offense. We find we must reverse both the convictions and the death sentence and remand for a new trial because the trial judge failed to excuse a challenged juror for cause who said his belief about the insanity defense would probably prevent him from following the court's instructions on that issue.
This was a particularly gruesome crime. Paramedics found the victim in her home, bleeding profusely from an ear-to-ear severe knife cut. The appellant, who sometimes worked as a handyman and gardener on the victim's premises, was identified by the victim before she died. Other testimony established the appellant's presence near the victim's home at the time she died, and shortly after the incident appellant confessed to the crime. Appellant's defense theory throughout the trial was that his paranoid schizophrenic condition rendered the confession unreliable and that he was insane at the time of the offense. Counsel for the state and for the defense questioned the jury extensively concerning the insanity defense and the jurors' ability to accept or reject expert opinions from mental health professionals. The following exchange occurred during the voir dire examination of a prospective juror, Mr. Lopez:
....
Appellant's trial counsel challenged Lopez for cause based on his stated inability to follow the court's instructions. The trial court denied the challenge, although it granted a defense motion to excuse another juror for cause based on almost identical answers. The appellant expended a peremptory challenge to remove Mr. Lopez from the jury panel. Later, appellant exhausted his peremptory challenges and made a request for additional peremptory challenges which was denied by the trial judge.
The record clearly reflects that the sole issue presented to the jury in the guilt phase of appellant's trial concerned appellant's mental illness. This is illustrated by the prosecutor's closing argument, where he stated: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rety v. Green
... ... of the [c]ourt." This is almost a self-evident conclusion because no libel verdict in the state or in the country has ever been upheld which even remotely approaches the amount of compensatory ... Co. v. Moore, 135 Fla. 485, 181 So. 374, 378 (1938), as modified on reh. by 135 Fla. 485, 186 So. 210 (1938); ... ...
-
Robinson v. Weiland
... ... v. Matatics, 55 So.2d 549 (Fla.1951); Dees v. State, 357 So.2d 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Thrifty Super Mkt., Inc. v. Kitchener, 227 So.2d 500 (Fla. 3d ... ...
-
Penn v. State, 74123
...Young's reasoning and conclusions in Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81, 108 S.Ct. 2273, 101 L.Ed.2d 80 (1988). Penn relies on Moore v. State, 525 So.2d 870 (Fla.1988), and Hill v. State, 477 So.2d 553 (Fla.1985), but those cases are distinguishable from the instant case. Penn never objected to ......
-
Noe v. State
...4th DCA 1990). See also Sydleman v. Benson, 463 So.2d 533 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). The Singer principles were reaffirmed in Moore v. State, 525 So.2d 870 (Fla.1988); Hill v. State, 477 So.2d 553 (Fla.1985); State v. Williams, 465 So.2d 1229 (Fla.1985); Tenon v. State, 545 So.2d 382 (Fla. 1st DC......
-
The trial is the beginning of your appeal.
...1984); State v. Slappy, 522 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 1988) (discriminatory use of peremptory challenges as issues on appeal); Moore v. State, 525 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 1988) (failure to exclude juror for cause constitutes reversible (12) Joiner v. State, 618 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 1993); Scott v. State, 618 So......