Sears v. State
| Decision Date | 12 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D19-1977,4D19-1977 |
| Parties | Leoton Rondero SEARS, Sr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Scott Thomas Pribble, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Alexandra A. Folley, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Appellant Leoton Rondero Sears, Sr., was convicted of burglary with an assault or battery (Count I) and attempted sexual battery on a victim between the ages of 12 and 17 (Count II). He raises two issues on appeal. We affirm on both issues and write to address Appellant's concern as to the trial court's dismissal of a potential juror during voir dire. Acknowledging the discretion afforded a trial judge in jury selection, we find no reversible error with respect to the trial court's determination that the prospective juror could not be impartial. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment and sentence.
The court began voir dire with an introductory statement to the venire discussing fairness and the importance of giving the State and Appellant a fair trial. These statements included:
At this point, one of the potential jurors, "Juror K," raised her hand. The court noted Juror K's raised hand and stated that it would come back to her in a minute, before continuing to address the venire.
Shortly thereafter, the court asked the prospective jurors if they would be able to follow the law as written. Juror K again raised her hand and responded as follows:
Thereafter, the court explained to Juror K that the reason everyone was there was to pick a fair jury, stating that:
Later, during voir dire, while another juror was explaining to the court that sheriffs had previously been unfair to her high school age son, Juror K made an indiscernible comment, prompting the court to hold a sidebar with the parties’ counsel. During the sidebar, the defense noted that although Juror K had expressed some things that had happened to her personally, she had not stated that she could not be fair. Defense counsel stated that if the court directly asked Juror K "can you be fair [and] can you follow the law as you've been instructed," and Juror K answered "no," the defense would have no objection to her dismissal. However, the defense noted that the question had not yet been directly asked of her.
Following this sidebar, the court questioned Juror K as follows:
The court then excused Juror K without further questioning. At that time, Appellant did not raise an objection to this dismissal. After other prospective jurors had been questioned and several, by mutual consent of the parties, had been dismissed, the defense moved for a mistrial based on the removal of Juror K. The defense argued that Juror K "never said she couldn't be fair," and that "it's [not] appropriate for a court to sua sponte dismiss a juror without a motion before the Court."
The trial court denied the motion for a mistrial, commenting that Juror K had stated that she could not "follow the law" and had answered "no" to the question "Can you be fair and impartial." A jury was seated and, following trial, Appellant was convicted and sentenced. This appeal followed.
Appellant argues that the trial court erred in dismissing Juror K without allowing the defense to further question or attempt to rehabilitate her. Appellant contends that Juror K's comments merely expressed concerns about the fairness of the criminal justice system and the role race plays, but they did not express a clear refusal or inability to be impartial, to follow the law or to reach a verdict. The State responds that Juror K's comments evidenced a reasonable doubt as to her fitness to serve as a juror.
A trial court has "broad discretion in the procedural conduct of trials," including "in deciding whether a juror may sit." Jennings v. State , 512 So. 2d 169, 173 (Fla. 1987) ; Rock v. State , 638 So. 2d 933, 934 (Fla. 1994). Whether a prospective juror is competent to serve as a juror is a mixed question of law and fact and, on appeal, this Court will not disturb the trial court's decision unless it is manifestly erroneous. Suri v. State , 937 So. 2d 216, 219 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (citing Mills v. State , 462 So. 2d 1075, 1079 (Fla. 1985) ).
In a criminal trial, it is the trial court's duty to see that defendants are tried by a jury such that not even the suspicion of bias, prejudice or prejudgment can attach to any member of the jury. Nicholas v. State , 47 So. 3d 297, 305 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). "The test for determining juror competency is whether the juror can lay aside any bias or prejudice and render his verdict solely upon the evidence presented and the instructions on the law given to him by the court," rather than on his preconceived opinions. Burgess v. State , 248 So. 3d 131, 133 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (quoting Lusk v. State , 446 So. 2d 1038, 1041 (Fla. 1984) ). If, instead, a prospective juror indicates that he or she may be biased, this sentiment must inform the trial court's analysis of the juror's partiality. Matarranz v. State , 133 So. 3d 473, 489 (Fla. 2013).
We have previously explained that a potential juror merely expressing doubts on voir dire about his ability to be impartial does not necessarily entail a finding of actual bias. Carratelli v. State , 915 So. 2d 1256, 1260 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Further, "[t]he mere fact that a juror gives equivocal responses does not [automatically] disqualify that juror for service." Suri , 937 So. 2d at 219 (quoting Busby v. State , 894 So. 2d 88, 96 (Fla. 2004) ). The dispositive "question is whether the responses voiced by the juror were equivocal enough to generate a reasonable doubt about his fitness as a juror." Id.
Procedurally, when a prospective juror's answers suggest incompetency to be a juror, rehabilitation is generally the proper next step. Conde v. State , 860 So. 2d 930, 941 (Fla. 2003). Florida's Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that when voir dire raises concerns about a potential juror's impartiality, before the court excuses the juror for cause, "[c]ounsel for both the State and defendant shall have the right to examine the juror orally on their voir dire" to clarify whether the juror's answers to prior questioning indicated an inability to fulfill the obligations of a juror. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.300(b), (c). While the trial court may also examine each prospective juror individually, "[t]he right of the parties to conduct...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The trial (conduct of trial, jury instructions, verdict)
...impartial raises sufficient reasonable doubt for the court to dismiss them without the possibility for rehabilitation. Sears v. State, 307 So. 3d 746 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) In prosecution for felonious possession of a firearm, where prior a prior felony conviction is an element for the jury to......