Ter Keurst v. Miami Elevator Co.
| Decision Date | 31 July 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-196,84-196 |
| Citation | 453 So.2d 501 |
| Parties | James TER KEURST and Cecilia Ter Keurst, Appellant, v. MIAMI ELEVATOR COMPANY and Centaur Insurance Company, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Maguire & Friend and Michael P. Maguire, Coral Gables, for appellant.
Schwartz & Hasty and G.J. Godfrey, Miami, for appellees.
Before HUBBART, BASKIN and FERGUSON, JJ.
We affirm the judgment below on the authority of Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Gellert, 438 So.2d 923 (Fla.3d DCA 1983) which specifically approved the method used in this case for selection of the jury panel. We hereby certify to the Supreme Court of Florida that this decision passes upon a question of great public importance:
May a trial court require the parties to exercise all of their peremptory challenges simultaneously in writing where the original panel has been thoroughly examined and challenges for cause exercised, and there remain sufficient members to comprise a jury after all peremptory challenges have been exhausted?
Affirmed; question certified.
I disagree with the conclusion in the majority opinion that Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Gellert, 438 So.2d 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) forecloses our consideration of the issue raised in this appeal. In Gellert the court addressed the inability of a litigant to exercise all his peremptory challenges when there were fewer than six prospective jurors remaining in the box. Because the trial court had denied the litigants an opportunity to challenge prospective jurors seated later, this court reversed.
Now, however, we are confronted with a different problem. Appellants complain that under the system used by the trial court in reliance on Gellert, they were deprived of the opportunity to exercise intelligent judgment because they were required to submit their peremptory challenges simultaneously with those submitted by opposing counsel. Thus, when they exercised their peremptory challenges at the time specified by the trial court, they did not know which prospective jurors had been excused by opposing counsel. In fact, the trial court stated:
[T]his will be the only time that you will have a chance to exercise your challenges and if you do not use all three of them, you will waive them ....
Appellants maintain that the court should have ordered a system which would permit the parties to take turns in exercising peremptory challenges. They would then have avoided wasting their peremptory challenges on individuals already excused by opposing counsel. Their claim has merit.
In my view, the procedure utilized by the trial court denied appellants the opportunity guaranteed by law to reach an intelligent decision as to the exercise of peremptory challenges. Loftin v. Wilson, 67 So.2d 185 (Fla.1953); Minnis v. Jackson, 330 So.2d 847 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). Once the litigants have used their challenges on individuals already excused by an opponent, they lack further recourse,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cedars of Lebanon Hosp. Corp. v. Silva
...that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its conduct and supervision of the jury voir dire, cf. Ter Keurst v. Miami Elevator Company, 453 So.2d 501 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Eastern Air Lines v. Gellert, 438 So.2d 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), in limiting the number of expert witnesses to b......
-
Dobek v. Ans, 84-1494
...only to note that the Third District has apparently approved of the same practice which we disapprove here. See Ter Keurst v. Miami Elevator Co., 453 So.2d 501 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) and Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Gellert, 438 So.2d 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 1 Section 913.04, Florida Statutes reads as f......
-
Ter Keurst v. Miami Elevator Co.
...and there remain sufficient members to comprise a jury after all peremptory challenges have been exhausted? Ter Keurst v. Miami Elevator Co., 453 So.2d 501, 501 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). We answer the certified question in the In this case sixteen prospective jurors were called. The judge require......
-
Edge v. State, 82-481
...v. United Building Systems, Inc., 408 So.2d 630 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).1 §§ 59.041 and 924.33, Fla.Stat.2 See Keurst v. Miami Elevator Company, et al, 453 So.2d 501 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Gellert, 438 So.2d 923 (Fla. 3d DCA ...