Robinson v. State, 85-1829
Decision Date | 09 April 1987 |
Docket Number | No. 85-1829,85-1829 |
Citation | 506 So.2d 1070,12 Fla. L. Weekly 985 |
Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 985 Easau ROBINSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Nancye R. Crouch, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Joseph N. D'Achille, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.
Appellant was convicted of sexual battery. The issue concerns the trial court's refusal to excuse four prospective jurors for cause.
After four jurors expressed their belief that they could not be impartial, defense counsel moved to strike them from the venire for cause; the trial court refused. That which follows is a portion of the voir dire examination of the jurors.
MR. JABLON (defense counsel): Excuse me for one second.
Okay. Let's start with the first row. Mr. [sic] Laudner, what are your feelings?
Anyone else on the first row feel that way?
PROSPECTIVE JURORS: (No response.)
* * *
* * *
Now the question to you is, do you feel like your feelings toward children will make it impossible for you to do that fairly if the judge instructs you that you must weigh the evidence and the credibility of witnesses and listen to all the evidence? Can you do it?
Or let me ask you this, since you have trouble saying you absolutely can do it: Can you tell me now that you cannot do it, or will you do your best and try?
MS. LAUDNER: I would have to say I'd try.
MR. ASHTON (prosecutor): Okay. You'll try. And do you think that you may be able to do it, no guarantees, just that you'll do your best to try and do it?
After the denial of the motion to strike for cause, appellant preemptorily challenged these jurors and exhausted his preemptory challenges. His request for additional preemptory strikes was refused.
In Auriemme v. State, 501 So.2d 41 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), this court recently held that a juror's ability to be fair and impartial must be unequivocally asserted in the record. Absent such assertion, the juror should be excused. Because the prospective jurors in that case, Blume and Carrier, were unable to convince this court of their ability to be impartial, this court reversed and remanded the cause for a new trial. Blume's and Carrier's inability to honestly affirm their ability to be fair and objective is very similar to the doubts evidenced by the jurors in the instant case. 1
In this case under review, the prospective jurors Laudner, Barker and Wedlund each stated that although they were unsure of their ability to be impartial, they would certainly try. A juror's promise that they will try to be impartial is simply not enough to guarantee that a defendant will be given a fair trial. Because these jurors' statements evidence a reasonable doubt as to their ability to be impartial both as to the evidence submitted and as to the law announced at trial, we must remand this cause for a new trial. See also Hill v. State, 477 So.2d 553 (Fla.1985); Smith v. State, 463 So.2d 542 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Smith v. State, 86-2624
...evidence, and the said juror should have been excused for cause. See Singer v. State, 109 So.2d 7, 23-24 (Fla.1959); Robinson v. State, 506 So.2d 1070 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Auriemme v. State, 501 So.2d 41 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), rev. denied, 506 So.2d 1043 (Fla.1987). Moreover, the defendant wa......
-
Coggins v. State, 95-130
...553 (Fla.1985); Price v. State, 538 So.2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Smith v. State, 516 So.2d 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Robinson v. State, 506 So.2d 1070 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). I concur in the ordering of a new 1 Coggins actually appeals the denial of his challenge for cause of four prospective ju......
-
Montozzi v. State, 91-2929
...are simply not enough to guarantee a fair trial, at least in the face of such prior testimony as this juror gave. Robinson v. State, 506 So.2d 1070, 1072 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). Efforts at rehabilitating a prospective juror should always be considered in light of what the juror had freely said......
-
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.
...financial performance; and she admitted that the plaintiff might be starting out with one strike against him). (54) Robinson v. State, 506 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 5th (55) Fazzolari v. City of West Palm Beach, 608 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1992), rev. denied, 620 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 1993) (56) Id.......