STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
GEORGE WILLIAM THAYER, 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.
The dissenting opinion argues that certiorari should be granted to review an interlocutory order that departs from the essential requirements of law, asserting that the state has no other avenue for review and that prior case law supports this.
The dissenting opinion believes it was error to deny certiorari, advocating for the continued availability of common law certiorari review for the state in cases of interlocutory orders that depart from essential legal requirements.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion and departs from the essential requirements of law by authorizing the submission of an overly broad questionnaire to prospective juror…
[2] A strict application of the holding in Jones v. …
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 intelligenceThe case involves a situation where the State sought review of a trial court's interlocutory order. The dissenting judge believes certiorari review is…
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 Common Law cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The State of Florida seeks review by petition for writ of certiorari of an order granting respondent’s motion to submit a questionnaire to prospective jurors.
The questionnaire contains thirty-six questions with numerous subparts. The questions probe into the jurors’ politics, religion, social views, hobbies, books read, what, if any, bumper stickers they have on their cars, etc. In short, the questions go far beyond the questions that might ordinarily be asked during voir dire examination. We believe the trial court abused its discretion and departed from the essential requirements of law when it authorized submission of this questionnaire to the prospective jurors. However, we have not discussed the law which we consider disposi-tive of this question because a strict application of the holding in Jones v. State, 477 So. 2d 566 (Fla.1985) requires us to deny certiorari.
Moreover, we approved State v. G.P. and held that no right of review by certiorari exists if no right of appeal exists.
Id.
We find Chief Justice Boyd’s interpretation of the court’s opinion in Jones instructive. However, we are uncertain as to the extent of the state’s right of certiorari review in a criminal case. We recognize that our interpretation of Jones v. State conflicts with the result reached by the Second District Court of Appeal in State v. Wilson, 483 So. 2d 23 (Fla.2d DCA 1985). Therefore we certify the following question to the Supreme Court as a question of great public importance:
DO THE HOLDINGS IN JONES V. STATE, 477 So. 2d 566 (Fla.1985), STATE V. G.P., 476 So. 2d 1272 (Fla.1985) and STATE V. C.C., 476 So. 2d 144 (Fla.1985) PRECLUDE THE STATE FROM SEEKING CERTIORARI REVIEW OF NON-APPEALABLE INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS IN A CRIMINAL CASE WHERE THE STATE HAS DEMONSTRATED A CLEAR DEPARTURE FROM THE ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS OF LAW? CERTIORARI DENIED.1
HERSEY, G.J., and DELL, J., concur. GLICKSTEIN, J., dissents with opinion.
. The Second District Court of Appeal certified substantially the same question in State v. Wilson.
GLICKSTEIN, Judge,
dissenting.
In my view, it is error to deny certiorari. The exercise of caution at the expense of awareness is unwarranted. The Second District Court of Appeal made a wise decision in State v. Wilson, cited by the majority. Like the Wilson court, I believe that if the Supreme Court had intended to fore close common law certiorari review to the state in cases where an interlocutory order of the trial court departs from the essential requirements of law and the state has no other avenue of review, it would have explicitly receded from State v. Smith, 260 So. 2d 489 (Fla.1972) (the district court correctly found there was no valid authority for the state to appeal the issue, but should not have denied the state’s petition for writ of certiorari), and similar cases. We should not let a vague fear that the sky may fall divert us from dealing with a known leak in the dam.
Until the Supreme Court adopts a rule to the contrary, the only questionnaire that veniremen should be sent is that permitted by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.431.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Arriagada, 508 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…, that certiorari is a proper method for the state to obtain review of an interlocutory order not directly appealable by rule. Smith, 260 So. 2d at 491. As far as we know, Smith has not been overruled. See dissenting view in [*1248] State v. Thayer, 489 So. 2d 782, 783-84 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (“if the Supreme Court had intended to foreclose common law certiora-ri review to the state in cases where an interlocutory order of the trial court departs from the essential requirements of the law and the state has no…
-
State v. Johnson, 490 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…GLICKSTEIN, Judge, concurring. I concur for the reason recited in my concurring opinion in State v. Mitchell, 490 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), which I distinguish from State v. Thayer, 489 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).…1 / 2
-
State v. Thayer, 520 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 1988)…PER CURIAM. We have for review State v. Thayer, 489 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal certified the following question as one of great public importance: DO THE HOLDINGS IN JONES v. STATE, 477 So. 2d 566 (Fla.1985), STATE v. G.P., 476 So. 2d 1272 (Fla.1985) AND STATE…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Smith, 260 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1972)
- State v. C.C., 476 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 1985)
- Hollis Jones v. State, 477 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 1985)
- State v. G.P., 476 So. 2d 1272 (Fla. 1985)
- State v. Wilson, 483 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)