TEDDY WARREN KELLY, SR., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
The court held that the trial court erred in the jury selection process by failing to strike a jury panel with prior knowledge of the appellant's other trial.
Appellant's jury venire had previously been present for another trial of the appellant. Counsel moved to strike the panel due to potential prejudice, …
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 Grand Larceny cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks reversal of his conviction for burglary and grand larceny, arguing six points on appeal. We find that the trial court committed error in the jury selection process and reverse on that ground.
The record reveals that several members of the jury venire from which the jury was chosen in this case had been present earlier in the week when a jury was chosen for an earlier trial of appellant on different charges. Appellant’s counsel moved prior to trial to strike the jury panel in this case on that basis. The court took the motion under advisement but nevertheless swore the panel. Subsequently during voir dire, appellant’s counsel asked the court’s permission to question certain of the jurors separately to minimize any knowledge of the previous trial against appellant, but the trial court denied that request. The record also indicates that a prospective jur-or independently approached the bench and told the court that he did not believe appellant could receive a fair trial in view of the panel’s familiarity with the previous trial.
It is fundamental that every defendant is entitled to be tried by a fair and impartial jury. In Marrero v. State, 343 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), the court reversed a conviction in an almost identical situation, finding that a jury is “bound to be unfairly prejudiced against the accused by reason of the knowledge of his arrest for another crime.” We concur with that reasoning here, and accordingly reverse the judgment with instructions to grant a new trial.
We have considered appellant’s other points and found them to be without merit or not properly preserved for appeal.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
McCORD, C. J., and BOOTH and LARRY G. SMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pender v. State, 530 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…(Emphasis supplied.) Cases cited by appellant, although not totally on point, do support his argument that a “jury is bound to be unfairly prejudiced against the accused by reason of their knowledge of his arrest for another crime.” Kelly v. State, 371 So. 2d 162, 163 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), (where this court reversed appellant’s conviction because some jurors knew appellant was to be tried for another offense as well as the present one.) In Wilding v. State, 427 So. 2d 1069, 1070 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), where appe…
-
Brower v. State, 727 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…ospective juror, who worked as a corrections officer, indicated she knew the defendant through her employment, implying that he was a convicted felon, and, therefore, his motion to strike the venire should have been granted. See also Kelly v. State, 371 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) (reversing and remanding for new trial where several members had been in previous venire that week when jury was chosen for defendant’s trial on different charges). The determination of juror qualifications is a discretionary fu…
-
Lebron v. State, 724 So. 2d 1208 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…l jurors. See Art. 1, § 16, Fla. Const.; see also Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.251. Jurors who believe that a defendant has committed or has been charged with committing other crimes are not impartial and are therefore subject to challenge. See Kelly v. State, 371 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); see also Wilding v. State, 427 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). While we yield to the findings of the trial court regarding Mr. Wright’s credibility, we disagree with the conclusion that Mr. Wright’s failure to disclose to the t…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Yarber v. State, 343 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)