Roberts ex rel. Estate of Roberts v. Tejada
Decision Date | 21 February 2002 |
Docket Number | No. SC00-1080.,SC00-1080. |
Citation | 814 So.2d 334 |
Parties | Lucille ROBERTS, personally and as Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF Frederick ROBERTS, Petitioner, v. Francisco TEJADA, M.D., Francisco Tejada M.D., F.A.C.P., P.A., and Francisco Tejada M.D., F.A.C.P., P.A. d/b/a American Oncology Centers Inc., Respondents. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
David Kleinberg of Gaebe, Murphy, Mullen & Antonelli, Coral Gables, FL, for Petitioner.
Shelley H. Leinicke of Wicker, Smith, Tutan, O'Hara, McCoy, Graham & Ford, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Respondents.
We have for review Tejada v. Roberts, 760 So.2d 960 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), which expressly and directly conflicts with this Court's opinion in De La Rosa v. Zequeira, 659 So.2d 239 (Fla.1995). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.
After the death of Frederick Roberts due to liver cancer, the widow and personal representative of the decedent's estate, Mrs. Roberts ("Roberts") sued Dr. Tejada ("Tejada"), alleging negligence in the treatment of Mr. Roberts' cancer. During voir dire questioning of the venire, the trial judge initially stated:
I'll ask you ... have you been a party to a lawsuit. What I mean by that is, have you brought a court action against somebody else seeking money from them or if someone brought an action against you, seeking money from you. And it could be because of an auto accident, breach of contract, many other things, divorces and what not. But let me know if you have been a party, a plaintiff or defendant, in a case yourself or maybe a close family member has been involved in a lawsuit. Let me know that as well.
Thereafter, immediately before Roberts' counsel questioned each potential juror, he said:
During the course of questioning, Ms. Fornell and Ms. Guerrero failed to disclose any prior litigation history. In fact, Ms. Fornell, in responding to the trial court's inquiry regarding whether she had ever been a party to a lawsuit, affirmatively responded, "Never," and both Ms. Fornell and Ms. Guerrero, in answering the same question later posed by the plaintiffs counsel responded, "No." However, other prospective jurors did discuss their involvement in lawsuits: two individuals disclosed that they had been involved in legal actions involving automobile accidents; one person spoke about a personal injury action which had been brought by his grandmother; and four others disclosed that they had been or were currently involved in some type of domestic dispute proceedings. None of the jurors who disclosed any sort of litigation history were selected to sit on the jury and challenges were utilized to excuse individuals who had previously been involved in legal actions and domestic disputes.
Following the jury verdict in Tejada's favor, Roberts filed a motion for new trial and/or mistrial. As grounds for the motion, Roberts cited the improper use of closing argument (an asserted "Golden Rule" violation) and witness testimony (of both the defendant and his experts). Before the trial court considered the motion, Roberts searched the official public records index maintained by the Miami-Dade County Clerk of Courts, and amended her motion to include the information obtained from that search. Specifically, Roberts stated that she had "come to learn" that certain jurors had "been involved in prior litigation matters, which were not disclosed during the voir dire process," listing Thelma Fornell (five cases), Paula Guerrero (two cases) and Jessica Martinez (four cases). Roberts then requested a jury interview. The trial court required more information before it could render its final decision, and denied the request to interview jurors without prejudice. Instead, it entered an order allowing the parties access to jury pool information regarding name, address, driver's license, and date of birth.
After having acquired the jury pool information to which the court afforded access, Roberts conducted an "AutoTrak" computerized background check using the jurors' names. That search identified six licensed Florida drivers with Guerrero's name, five of whom were registered as Miami Dade County residents. Thereafter, Roberts reviewed the court index to identify cases involving the jurors, and attempted to obtain individual court files. Some records were unavailable entirely, while others were available at the Dade County Courthouse, in off-site storage, at the Metro Justice Building, or at the Coral Gables Court Annex.
Roberts then filed a second amended motion for relief. She claimed that a new trial was warranted based upon the failure of certain jurors to disclose, during the voir dire process, their involvement in prior litigation. The public records for Miami-Dade County appeared to show that, in 1996, "Paula C. Guerrero" had filed a domestic violence petition, and had shortly thereafter voluntarily dismissed the action. The "AutoTrak" search also identified two 1995 cases involving "Paula Guerrero"; however, confirmation was unavailable that the juror was the same person identified in Roberts' search.
The public records also appeared to disclose that Ms. Fornell had been a party in two civil actions over twenty years ago, one as a defendant in a case filed in 1973, and the other as a plaintiff in an auto negligence case filed in 1975. The 1973 small claims case had been resolved by stipulation about six months after filing, and no final judgment was ever entered. The 1975 action was actually initiated by Fornell and other members of the Fornell family against Florida Ranch Enterprises.
The trial court carefully considered the three motions, which had been prepared and filed over a ten-month period, and reviewed the record of litigation documents. Based upon this review, it made, inter alia, these findings of fact:
After considering the applicable case law, the trial court granted Roberts' motion and ordered a new trial. The court stated during the pertinent hearing:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Foster v. State
...was ‘relevant’ ... but also that it is ‘material to jury service in the case.’ ” Hampton, 103 So.3d at 112 (quoting Roberts v. Tejada, 814 So.2d 334, 339 (Fla.2002) (quoting De La Rosa, 659 So.2d at 241)). In Johnston v. State, 63 So.3d 730 (Fla.2011), we explained, “There is no per se rule......
-
Foster v. State
...was 'relevant' . . . but also that it is 'material to jury service in the case.' " Hampton, 103 So. 3d at 112 (quoting Roberts v. Tejada, 814 So. 2d 334, 339 (Fla. 2002) (quoting De La Rosa, 659 So. 2d at 241)). In Johnston v. State, 63 So. 3d 730 (Fla. 2011), we explained, "There is no per......
-
Bolling v. Jones
...is an element of Florida's De La Rosa test; nor is either required to meet De La Rosa's materiality prong. See Roberts v. Tejada, 814 So. 2d 334, 342 (Fla. 2002) ("'[P]rejudice' . . . is not a part of the De La Rosa test."); Fine v. Shands Teaching Hosp. and Clinics, Inc., 994 So. 2d 426, 4......
-
NICHOLAS v. State of Fla.
...not only that the nondisclosed matter was ‘relevant’ ... but also that it is ‘material to jury service in the case.’ ” Roberts v. Tejada, 814 So.2d 334, 339 (Fla.2002) (quoting De La Rosa, 659 So.2d at 241). A juror's nondisclosure of information is considered material where “the omission [......
-
Voir dire necessities: the Florida Supreme Court clarifies when trial counsel's investigation of the venire must be undertaken.
...the Florida Supreme Court clearly recognized the wave of diligence-related cases, and appropriately reversed Tejada. Roberts v. Tejada, 814 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 2002). (4) Citing some of the aforedescribed practical and logistical problems, the Supreme Court bemoaned the Tejada requirement of a......
-
Professional Responsibility Review 2015
...make reasonable efforts to investigate selected jurors' litigation history on Case.net.); Roberts ex rel. Estate of Roberts v. Tejada, 814 So.2d 334 (Fla. 2002) (Case remanded because juror's nondisclosure of prior litigation history is material but trial counsel was not required to search ......