ANDRE MICHAEL WILDING, 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.
Andre Michael Wilding was convicted of obtaining property by worthless check. The Florida Second District Court of Appeal reversed his conviction and remanded for a new trial because a prospective juror disclosed during voir dire that he had knowledge of other charges against Wilding, and the trial court denied the defendant's motion for mistrial, thereby violating his right to an impartial jury.
The trial court's denial of the motion for mistrial constituted error because an accused's right to a fair and impartial jury is violated when a jury is improperly made aware of a defendant's arrest for unrelated crimes during jury selection. The defendant was deprived of his constitutional right to an impartial jury under the Florida Constitution and Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.
[1] A defendant's right to an impartial jury is violated when the jury is improperly made aware of the defendant's arrest for unrelated crimes during the jury selection proce…
[2] A defendant's right to an impartial jury is violated when the jury is improperly made aware of the defendant's arrest for unrelated crimes during the trial.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“an accused has the right to an impartial jury. Fla. Const. art. I, § 16; Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.251.”
Establishes the constitutional and procedural basis for the right to an impartial jury.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring voir dire examination of prospective jurors, one juror stated that while he would try to listen to testimony and be fair and impartial, he had …
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 Prior Bad Acts Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHOONOVER, Judge.
The appellant, Andre Michael Wilding, has appealed his conviction for obtaining property in return for a worthless check. We find that the trial court committed error during the jury selection process and accordingly reverse and remand for a new trial.
During the voir dire examination of prospective jurors, one juror stated that he would try to listen to the testimony presented during the trial and be fair and impartial, but he had some knowledge of previous charges against the appellant. The appellant’s attorney immediately challenged the entire jury panel by moving for mistrial. The motion was denied.
The trial court’s failure to grant the appellant’s motion resulted in the appellant being tried by a jury which had improperly obtained knowledge of other charges against him. Both the Florida Constitution and the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that an accused has the right to an impartial jury. Fla. Const. art. I, § 16; Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.251. The appellant was deprived of this right because the jury panel was bound to be unfairly prejudiced by virtue of their knowledge of his arrest for another crime. Marrero v. State, 343 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977).
Subject to certain exceptions which are not applicable in the ease sub judice, it is error for a witness to testify concerning a defendant’s arrest for unrelated crimes. Clark v. State, 337 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Whitehead v. State, 279 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973); § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (1981). Additionally, we have held that even in the absence of direct testimony by a witness, it was error to allow the admission of “mug shots" into evidence because they constituted an impermissible reference to the defendant’s prior arrest record. Whitehead v. State.
It is true that the information imparted to the jury by the prospective juror was received by them prior to the commencement of the state’s case. However, the prejudice to the appellant is almost as certain to be as great, if not greater, when the information is received in this manner rather than when it is a part of the prosecution’s evidence and subject to protective procedures. We accordingly hold that an accused’s right to a fair and impartial jury is violated when a jury is improperly made aware of a defendant’s arrest for unrelated crimes either during the jury selection process or during the trial proper. Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
HOBSON, Acting C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Johnson v. State, 903 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 2005)…r dire was not error). In order for the statement of one venire member to taint the panel, the venire member must mention facts that would not otherwise be presented to the jury. Pender v. State, 530 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Wilding v. State, 427 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). No venire member in Johnson’s case mentioned a fact that would not otherwise be presented to the jury. A venire member’s expression of an opinion before the entire panel is not normally considered sufficient to taint the remainde…
-
Rose v. State, 985 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 2008)…statement of fact that would not otherwise be presented to the jury. See, e.g., Pender v. State, 530 So. 2d 391, 393 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (finding reversible error based on mentioning the existence of another pending criminal case); Wilding v. State, 427 So. 2d 1069, 1069 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (same). Nor was her question an expression of a tainted opinion, which by itself would not be sufficient to taint the remainder of the panel. Johnson v. State, 903 So. 2d 888, 897 (Fla.2005). Further, Rose does not direct ou…
-
Singletary v. State, 483 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…missible reference to the defendant’s pri- or arrest record.... [A]n accused’s right to a fair and impartial jury is violated when a jury is improperly made aware of a defendant’s arrest for unrelated crimes ... during the trial_ Wilding v. State, 427 So. 2d 1069, 1069-70 (Fla. 2d DGA 1983). A curative instruction will not necessarily erase the effect of improper testimony from the minds of jurors. See Odom v. United States, 377 F. 2d 853, 859-60 (5th Cir.1967) cited in Bates v. State, 422 So. 2d 1033 (Fla.…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Blackman v. State, 279 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Yarber v. State, 343 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Clark v. State, 337 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)