Perea v. State, 94-897

Decision Date10 May 1995
Docket NumberNo. 94-897,94-897
Citation657 So.2d 8
Parties20 Fla. L. Weekly D1128 Ignacio Alejandro PEREA, a/k/a Ignacio Perea, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Paul Morris, Coral Gables, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Michael J. Neimand, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before COPE, GODERICH and GREEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Ignacio Alejandro Perea appeals his convictions for attempted first degree As to the first point on appeal, we find no error on the part of the trial court in denying the defendant's renewed motion for discharge on speedy trial grounds. Reading the transcript of the hearing below in the light most favorable to the State as the prevailing party on this issue, there was an ample basis for the denial of the defendant's renewed motion.

murder, kidnapping, lewd assault, and capital sexual battery. We reverse.

As to the second point on appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred by denying a challenge for cause of a juror who ultimately sat on the jury. Because the defendant had exhausted his peremptory challenges, he requested an additional peremptory challenge, which request was denied. Consequently defendant was unable to strike the juror. Defendant asks for a new trial.

The State first contends that this issue is not properly preserved for appellate review. We disagree. Defense counsel followed the procedures outlined in Trotter v. State, 576 So.2d 691, 693 (Fla.1990), in the exercise of defense challenges for cause and peremptory challenges. We conclude that defendant's jury challenge issue is properly preserved for appellate review and reject the State's argument to the contrary.

As set forth in Turner v. State, 645 So.2d 444 (Fla.1994):

The test for juror competency is "whether the juror can lay aside any bias or prejudice and render his [or her] verdict solely upon the evidence presented and the instructions on the law given to him [or her] by the court." The juror should be excused if there is any reasonable doubt about the juror's ability to render an impartial verdict.

Id. at 447 (citations omitted). "The competency of a juror challenged for cause presents a mixed question of law and fact to be determined by the trial court. Manifest error must be shown to overturn the trial court's finding." Mills v. State, 462 So.2d 1075, 1079 (Fla.), cert. denied, 473 U.S. 911, 105 S.Ct. 3538, 87 L.Ed.2d 661 (1985).

Recently, the Florida Supreme Court announced Bryant v. State, 656 So.2d 426 (Fla.1995), which contains circumstances analogous to this case. There, the Court said:

However, the record reflects that prospective juror Pekkola did not possess the requisite impartial state of mind. Pekkola indicated that he was a strong supporter of the death penalty, and believed that if someone is guilty of first-degree murder the appropriate penalty is the death penalty and that a life sentence is too lenient. Although Pekkola stated that he could follow the court's instructions, his other responses were sufficiently equivocal to cast doubt on this. Thus, the court erred in denying Bryant's challenge for cause of this prospective juror.

Id.

Defendant in this case was charged with sexual assault on a minor at a time when defendant knew he was HIV positive. The prospective jurors filled out special questionnaires, and voir dire was conducted partially in open court and partially individually in chambers. The juror at issue turned in a questionnaire answer indicating that he was unsure whether he could give defendant a fair trial. This was partly because of a sexual molestation experience of one of the juror's family members. As was true in the Bryant case, the prospective juror indicated that he would follow the court's instructions, but his other...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Gore v. State, 80916
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • July 17, 1997
    ...potential bias. Consistent with the principles enunciated in Williams for resolving these issues, the Third District, in Perea v. State, 657 So.2d 8 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), reversed the defendant's conviction based upon the trial court's error in denying a juror challenge for The juror at issue......
  • Gill v. State, 96-478
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • October 30, 1996
    ...553, 555-56 (Fla.1985) as well as this court's opinions. E.g., Coggins v. State, 677 So.2d 926, 927 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Perea v. State, 657 So.2d 8, 9 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 663 So.2d 632 (Fla.1995); Jones v. State, 652 So.2d 967, 969 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); King v. State, 622 So.2d 134,......
  • Gibson v. State, 94-3311
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • February 6, 1996
    ...457, 458 (Fla.1995), in which the Florida Supreme Court held that attempted felony murder is no longer a crime in Florida. Perea v. State, 657 So.2d 8, 9 (Fla. 3d DCA) (supplemental opinion in light of Gray, on state's motion for rehearing), rev. den., 663 So.2d 632 (Fla.1995). As to the ma......
  • Bryant v. State, 4D98-2547.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • February 23, 2000
    ...refusal amounts to reversible error. While we recognize the deference afforded trial judges in this area of the law, see Perea v. State, 657 So.2d 8, 9 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 663 So.2d 632 (Fla.1995), we are compelled to In assessing a juror's competence, the test is "`whether the ju......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT