WILLIE LEE JONES, 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.
This case reviews a second-degree murder conviction, focusing on whether the trial court improperly restricted the defendant's voir dire examination of prospective jurors. The appellate court found no reversible error due to an unclear record regarding the scope of the trial court's initial questioning.
No, the appellate court held that there was no reversible error in the restrictions imposed on voir dire. The court found the record insufficient to demonstrate that the trial court's questioning did not adequately cover the necessary subjects.
[1] Meaningful voir dire examination of prospective jurors is assured by rule, subject to the trial court's control of unreasonably repetitious and argumentative questioning.
[2] Counsel must have an opportunity to ascertain latent or concealed prejudgments by prospective jurors that will not yield to the law or evidence.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Meaningful voir dire examination of prospective jurors, by the court and by counsel, is assured by Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.300(b).”
Establishes the legal basis and importance of voir dire examination.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was convicted of second-degree murder. During jury selection (voir dire), defense counsel attempted to question prospective jurors about the…
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 Juror Competency cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The most significant issue on this appeal from a second degree murder conviction is whether the trial court erred in restricting voir dire examination of prospective jurors by appellant’s counsel. Meaningful voir dire examination of prospective jurors, by the court and by counsel, is assured by Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.300(b).
See also Barker v. Randolph, 239 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970), cert. den., 242 So. 2d 137; Poole v. State, 194 So. 2d 903 (Fla.1967).
Subject to the trial court’s control of unreasonably repetitious and argumentative voir dire questioning, counsel must have an opportunity to ascertain latent or concealed pre judgments by prospective jurors which will not yield to the law as charged by the court, or to the evidence. For that purpose counsel must be permitted to inquire of prospective jurors concerning their willingness and ability to accept the court’s charge in a criminal case concerning the presumption of innocence, the state’s burden of proof in respect to each element of the offense charged, and the defendant’s right not to testify, if the court has not first thoroughly examined the prospective jurors on those subjects. Here, though it is evident some restriction was imposed on defense counsel’s inquiry concerning those matters, the record neither contains nor fully reconstructs the court’s initial examination of the panel.
The trial court stated that “the questions proffered were covered adequately by the Court’s general questioning to the jury . .” In the absence of a clearer record, we can find no error in the restrictions imposed.
There was no error in the court’s failure to make a written finding of appellant’s competency, that having been waived, Hatchell v. State, 328 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), cert. den., 339 So. 2d 1169; or in excluding defendant’s proffered expert psychiatric testimony not tending to establish the defendant’s insanity. Tremain v. State, 336 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976), cert. den., 348 So. 2d 954 (Fla.1977).
AFFIRMED.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Acting C. J., and BOOTH and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Stano v. State, 473 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 1985)…dire. We disagree. While “counsel must have an opportunity to ascertain latent or concealed prejudgments by prospective jurors,” it is the trial court’s responsibility to control unreasonably repetitious and argumentative voir dire. Jones v. State, 378 So. 2d 797, 797-98 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), cert. denied, 388 So. 2d 1114 (Fla.1980). The test for determining a juror’s competency is whether that juror can lay aside any prejudice or bias and decide the case solely on the evidence presented and the instructions…
-
Hawthorne v. State, 408 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…. Appellee informs us that on remand the trial court determined that Dr. Walker’s qualifications to express an opinion on the battered woman syndrome were insufficient and her methodology was not generally accepted. . For example, Jones v. State, 378 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). .In Tremain, the expert testimony was offered in support of the entrapment defense. Apparently the defense sought to have a lesser standard of responsibility applied to the accused because of his lack of willpower and dependenc…
-
Peri v. State, 426 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…time and extent of the voir dire, Blackwell v. State, 101 Fla. 997, 132 So. 468 (1931); Barker v. Randolph, 239 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970), and the scope of the examination, Underwood v. State, 388 So. 2d 1333 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Jones v. State, 378 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). The judge is the arbiter of a juror’s fitness to serve, Singer v. State, 109 So. 2d 7 (Fla.1959); Barker v. Randolph, supra; Johnny Roberts, Inc. v. Owens, 168 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964), and the superintendent of the construc…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Davis v. State, 239 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- Tremain v. State, 336 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- Sammie Lee Poole v. State, 194 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 1967)
- Carlyle Hatchell v. State, 328 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Odessa Rush Randolph v. Barker, 242 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 1970)