Orosz v. State, OO-376
| Decision Date | 17 October 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. OO-376,OO-376 |
| Parties | Robin OROSZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Michael J. Minerva, Public Defender, and Louis G. Carres, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Carolyn M. Snurkowski, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Orosz appeals, urging that the trial court erred in its instructions to the jury panel and in dismissing a juror without the express consent of defendant. We affirm.
During the preliminary instructions to the jury panel the trial court stated:
It is the constitutionally guaranteed right of every citizen to make his defense to a charge of crime in open court according to the rules and to have the facts concerning his alleged crime heard, weighed, and considered and determined by a jury of his peers.
Standing alone, this statement could, under certain circumstances, constitute error and we caution the trial court to scrupulously avoid such comments. In this case, shortly after making the statement, the court instructed the jury on the defendant's right to remain silent specifying that the defendant did not have to prove his innocence or furnish any evidence. The court later instructed on the presumption of innocence and the state's burden of proving each material allegation beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. He reiterated that the defendant need not prove anything and that the entire burden is on the state to overcome the presumption of innocence. Under these circumstances any error the court may have committed was cured.
Additionally, we note that appellant did not object and did not move for a mistrial when the comment was made as is required in the absence of fundamental error. Clark v. State, 363 So.2d 331 (Fla.1978).
We also find no error with regard to appellant's second point. During the trial, the court noticed that one of the jurors appeared to be sleeping and called this to the attention of counsel, both of whom indicated they wished to proceed with the jury as constituted.
At the close of the evidence, the court again inquired of counsel and appellant stated he wished to continue with the same jury. The court decided to continue its observation of the juror during final instructions and then make its decision. After an off-the-record discussion, the court dismissed the juror and substituted an alternate. There was no record objection, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
NICHOLAS v. State of Fla.
...jurors is the responsibility of the court and the court is allowed discretion in dealing with any problems that arise.” Orosz v. State, 389 So.2d 1199, 1200 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); see generally Jennings v. State, 512 So.2d 169, 173 (Fla.1987) (“The trial judge has broad discretion in deciding......
-
Nicholas v. State Of Fla.
...jurors is the responsibility of the court and the court is allowed discretion in dealing with any problems that arise." Orosz v. State, 389 So. 2d 1199, 1200 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); see generally Jennings v. State, 512 So. 2d 169, 173 (Fla. 1987) ("The trial judge has broad discretion in decid......
-
Drejka v. State
...in misconduct that warrants removal from the jury." (citing Dery v. State , 68 So. 3d 252 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) )); Orosz v. State , 389 So. 2d 1199, 1200 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).Juror misconduct must be established during the trial court's interview with the juror. See Tapanes v. State , 43 So. 3......
-
Andrade v. State, 89-1329
...37 (1964); North v. State, 65 So.2d 77, 79-80 (Fla.1952), aff'd, 346 U.S. 932, 74 S.Ct. 376, 98 L.Ed. 423 (1954); Orosz v. State, 389 So.2d 1199, 1200 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); State v. Tresvant, 359 So.2d 524 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 368 So.2d 1375 (Fla.1979). Third, the trial court di......