State v. May
| Decision Date | 18 May 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 75--1196,75--1196 |
| Citation | 332 So.2d 146 |
| Parties | The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Craig B. MAY, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard E. Gerstein, State Atty., and Harold Ungerleider, Asst. State Atty., for appellant.
Richard B. Bergstresser, Miami, for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, C.J., HENDRY, J., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.
On Monday, June 23, 1975, the last day upon which the appellee Craig B. May could be brought to trial for a charged felony, a body of prospective jurors, who had been summoned for jury duty, were sworn in by the clerk of the court, by administration of the oath prescribed therefor in Rule 3.300(a) RCrP, following which they were examined as to their qualifications to serve as jurors (on cases for which they should be called and accepted) during that week. 1
During that day no jurors were called to serve on the trial of May, and no action was taken with reference to May's case on that day. Two days later, with the situation unchanged, May moved for discharge from the crime, for failure of the State to bring him to trial within the period required under Rule 3.191(a)(1) RCrP, and certifying his continuous availability for trial during the allotted period therefor. The motion was granted, and the State appealed.
Rule 3.191(a)(3) RCrP provides as follows:
The State argues that the swearing in and qualification of a panel of jurors on the first day of the week amounted to bringing the defendant May to trial on that day, notwithstanding no action was taken with reference to his case that day, and even though his case should not be called and proceeded in until later in the week. The appellee May contends that swearing a panel of jurors and qualifying them to try cases does not amount, ipso facto, to bringing to trial him or any other defendant whose case could be tried on that day. The appellee May contends that in order for him to be brought to trial on such day it would be necessary, at the least, that his case be called for trial and that a trial jury be called and seated for voir dire examination for trial of his case.
We hold those contentions of the appellee are correct, and so construe the rule, upon reading together the several portions of subsection (a)(3)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stuart v. State
...for voir dire for a particular trial within the period of the rule distinguishes Maines from the case at bar. See also State v. May, 332 So.2d 146 (Fla.3d DCA), Cert. denied, 339 So.2d 1172 (Fla.1976), which held that the swearing and qualifying of a panel of jurors for the week does not am......
-
Moore v. State
...when a jury panel is sworn for voir dire in a specific trial. See Hall v. State, 348 So.2d 932 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); State v. May, 332 So.2d 146 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), Cert. denied, 339 So.2d 1172 (Fla.1976); State ex rel. Maines v. Baker, 254 So.2d 207 The question having been answered contrary......
-
Moore v. State, 77-532
...is that the defendant in such circumstances should be discharged: Hall v. State, 348 So.2d 932 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977) and State v. May, 332 So.2d 146 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1976) cert. den. 339 So.2d 1172 (Fla.1977). 1 However, we feel compelled after a close reading of, the applicable rule and the Supr......
-
Joseph v. State, 84-2085
...and NESBITT and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. State ex rel. Maines v. Baker, 254 So.2d 207 (Fla.1971); State v. May, 332 So.2d 146 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 339 So.2d 1172 ...