Zitnick v. State, 90-701

Decision Date09 April 1991
Docket NumberNo. 90-701,90-701
Citation16 Fla. L. Weekly 967,576 So.2d 1381
Parties16 Fla. L. Weekly 967 Steven ZITNICK, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Mark King Leban, Miami, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Julie Thornton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before FERGUSON, LEVY and GODERICH, JJ.

CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

The State, through its confession of error filed in this cause, correctly agrees that the defendant is entitled to a new trial based upon the fact that the trial court limited voir dire to fifteen minutes despite the fact that there were nineteen potential jurors, that the defendant was charged with trafficking in 400 grams or more of cocaine, and that after the expiration of the fifteen-minute period, defense counsel indicated that he needed additional time to ask the jurors about the use of confidential informants, police undercover officers, and his sole defense of entrapment. The appellant's request for additional time was denied by the court. Clearly, as the State concedes, the foregoing constitutes reversible error. See James v. State, 575 So.2d 335 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) and Pineda v. State, 571 So.2d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).

Having determined that the defendant is entitled to a new trial for the foregoing reason, we do not reach the remaining points raised by appellant in this appeal.

Reversed and remanded.

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • O'Hara v. State, 93-3451
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 24 Agosto 1994
    ...time limitations or limitations on the number of questions results in the loss of this fundamental right. Compare Zitnick v. State, 576 So.2d 1381 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); James v. State, 575 So.2d 335 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Pineda v. State, 571 So.2d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Gosha v. State, 534 So.......
  • Miller v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 9 Mayo 2001
    ...time limitations or limitations on the number of questions results in the loss of this fundamental right."); Zitnick v. State, 576 So.2d 1381-82 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (on confession of error); Pineda v. State, 571 So.2d 105, 106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Gosha v. State, 534 So.2d 912 (Fla. 3d DCA 19......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT