HENRY LAVADO, JR., 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.
The Florida Supreme Court held that a trial court erred in restricting defense counsel's voir dire questioning about prospective jurors' ability to accept voluntary intoxication as a defense in an armed robbery case, thereby violating the defendant's right to a fair and impartial jury.
The trial court's restriction on defense counsel's voir dire questioning violated the defendant's right to a fair and impartial jury because prospective jurors must be questioned about their ability to fairly and impartially consider the defense of voluntary intoxication, a crucial element in a specific intent crime.
[1] Defense counsel is entitled to question prospective jurors during voir dire regarding their ability to consider the defense of voluntary intoxication.
[2] A trial court errs by restricting defense counsel's voir dire questioning concerning a prospective juror's willingness and ability to accept the defense of voluntary into…
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“If he knew nothing else about the prospective jurors, the single thing that defense counsel needed to know was whether the prospective jurors could fairly and impartially consider the defense of voluntary intoxication.”
Establishes that questioning prospective jurors about ability to accept voluntary intoxication defense is critical to obtaining a fair jury in specific intent crimes.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHenry Lavado was charged with armed robbery. During voir dire, the trial judge prevented defense counsel from questioning 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 Voir Dire Questioning cases and more on FLexlaw
BARKETT, Justice.
We have for review Lavado v. State, 469 So. 2d 917 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), because it directly and expressly conflicts with Pope v. State, 84 Fla. 428, 94 So. 865 (1922), Pait v. State, 112 So. 2d 380 (Fla.1959), and Washington v. State, 371 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. Henry Lavado was charged by information with armed robbery. During voir dire, defense counsel informed the prospective jurors that specific intent was an essential element of armed robbery. The trial judge advised defense counsel that it was “not proper on a jury selection to go into law” and would permit defense counsel to only ask about a prospective juror’s bias against drinking in general. Defense counsel explained that robbery is a specific intent crime and he wished to question the jurors about “their ability to entertain or accept the premise of voluntary intoxication as a defense.” The trial judge refused to permit the inquiry, permitting only a general question regarding a prospective juror’s ability to follow the court’s instructions.
At the close of the state’s case, defense counsel moved for a judgment of acquittal on the basis that the defense of voluntary intoxication had been established.
During closing argument, the prosecutor argued to the jury that “[tjhis voluntary intoxication business is simply a limp excuse used to try to get [Lavado] out of a heap of trouble” and was “no defense.”
The jury was instructed on voluntary intoxication. During deliberations, the jury asked: “What is the rule on the state of intoxication of the defendant?” and “Are we to concider [sic] his state of intoxication at the time of the robbery?” The court then re-read the instruction on voluntary intoxication, and the jury ultimately returned a verdict of guilty as charged. The Third District affirmed the conviction and sentence.
The issue presented in this case is whether the trial court erred in refusing defense counsel’s request to ask prospective jurors about their willingness and ability to accept the defense of voluntary intoxication. We believe the trial court’s restriction of defense counsel’s questioning on voir dire denied Lavado his right to a fair and impartial jury.
As Judge Pearson pointed out in his dissent, “[i]f he knew nothing else about the prospective jurors, the single thing that defense counsel needed to know was whether the prospective jurors could fairly and impartially consider the defense of voluntary intoxication.” 469 So. 2d at 919. We can add nothing to Judge Pearson’s comprehensive, articulate, and logical dissenting opinion, and therefore adopt it in its entirety as our majority opinion. Accordingly, we quash the decision below with directions to remand for a new trial.
It is so ordered. ADKINS, BOYD, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur. McDonald, C.J., and OVERTON, J., dissent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (42 total)
-
Chamberlain v. State, 881 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 2004)…urt permitted defense counsel to explore jurors’ concerns over the length of capital proceedings and their understanding of alternative penalties that applied. This Court found no error. See 808 So. 2d at 160. On the other hand, in Lavado v. State, 492 So. 2d 1322, 1323 (Fla.1986), this Court held that the trial court abused its discretion by precluding defense counsel from questioning potential jurors about their willingness to accept the defense of voluntary intoxication. The Court adopted the dissenting op…
-
Barnhill v. State, 834 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 2002)…59, 12 N.E. 98, 99 (1887)). If counsel knows nothing more of the jurors, the single thing defense counsel must ascertain is whether the prospective jurors can fairly and impartially consider the defense offered by the defendant. See Lavado v. State, 492 So. 2d 1322 (Fla.1986). A trial judge abuses his or her discretion if he or she precludes counsel from asking specific questions about bias or prejudice against the defendant or the defense theory, even if the judge permits the general question as to whether th…
-
Lovette v. State, 636 So. 2d 1304 (Fla. 1994)…utor improperly told the prospective jurors specific facts about the case and lectured them on the law during voir dire. The record, however, shows that the prosecutor answered a general question about various principles of law. See Lavado v. State, 492 So. 2d 1322 (Fla.1986). We therefore find no merit to this argument. We likewise find no merit to Lovette’s argument that instructing the jury on flight constituted reversible error. In Fenelon v. State, 594 So. 2d 292 (Fla.1992), we held that the flight instr…
Previewing 3 of 42 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pope v. State, 84 Fla. 428 (Fla. 1922)
- In re Florida Appellate Rules, 112 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 1959)
- Williams v. State, 469 So. 2d 917 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Lavado v. State, 469 So. 2d 917 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Roscoe Washington v. State, 371 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)