JACKIE LEE MOORE, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A trial commences for speedy trial rule purposes when a jury panel is sworn for voir dire in a specific trial, not when an initial oath is administered to a large prospective panel.
The District Court of Appeal certified a question regarding when a trial commences for the purposes of the 180-day speedy trial rule. The District Cou…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Voir Dire Examination cases and more on FLexlaw
OVERTON, Justice.
This is a petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal upon a certified question concerning the computation of time under the speedy trial rule.1 Moore v. State, 358 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). The certified question is as follows:
FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE 180-DAY RULE, DOES THE TRIAL COMMENCE UNDER RULE 3.191(a)(3) WHEN THE INITIAL OATH IS ADMINISTERED TO A LARGE PROSPECTIVE PANEL UNDER RULE 3.300(a) OR DOES THE TRIAL COMMENCE WHEN THE PANEL IS SEATED FOR VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION.
Id. at 1131.
The District Court, in the instant case, held that a trial commences under Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191(a)(3) when the initial oath is administered to the total jury venire without regard to the time when the oath is administered to prospective jurors and the voir dire is commenced in a specific case. This is contrary to our recent holding in Stuart v. State, 360 So. 2d 406, 409 (Fla. 1978). In accordance with our decision in Stuart, we hold that under Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191(a)(3) a trial commences 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 (Fla.1971).
The question having been answered contrary to the District Court’s holding, the decision of that court is quashed with directions that the petitioner be discharged.
It is so ordered.
ENGLAND, C. J., and SUNDBERG, HATCHETT and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur. . We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Basil McDERMOTT v. The State of Fla. & the Honorable Frederick Barad, 383 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…s never reassembled and remained on a standby basis. When the jury panel was sworn for voir dire examination, the trial was deemed to have commenced for the purpose of the speedy trial rule, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191. Moore v. State, 368 So. 2d 1291 (Fla.1979). Therefore, disposition of this case is not governed by the speedy trial rule. Additionally, the continuances authorized by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(g) are those prior to commencement of the trial. Consequently, the centra…
-
Hernandez v. State, 572 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…the speedy trial rule. As the jury panel was sworn for voir dire examination within the relevant period, that contention is without merit. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191(a)(3); McDermott v. State, 383 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); see also Moore v. State, 368 So. 2d 1291 (Fla.1979). Defendant also contends that he is entitled to discharge under the rule announced in McDermott, owing to separation of the jury between the time it was selected and the commencement of the evi-dentiary portion of the trial. The circumst…
-
LOY v. Leone, 546 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…25th. In our view, the selection and swearing in of the jurors on January 25th was the “commencement of the trial” under Florida law. It is well established that a criminal case commences with the selection and swearing of the jury. Moore v. State, 368 So. 2d 1291 (Fla.1979); McDermott v. State, 383 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Brannan v. State, 383 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); State ex rel. Capibianco v. Green, 377 So. 2d 979, 980 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), cert. denied, 388 So. 2d 1110 (Fla.1980). There is n…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Alphonso Stuart v. State, 360 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 1978)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Lender Lee Maines & Charlie B. Brown v. The Honorable Paul Baker, 254 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 1971)
- State v. MAY, 332 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Hall v. State, 348 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Moore v. State, 358 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)