THOMAS SPRINGER, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Thomas Springer appeals his conviction for burglary with battery, arguing the jury selection procedure violated his Sixth Amendment right to a fair and impartial jury by allowing interim jury service. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that the defendant waived the objection by failing to raise it immediately before trial when supplemental voir dire could have been conducted.
The defendant waived his objection to the jury selection procedure by failing to object at a time when the trial court could have afforded him the opportunity for supplemental voir dire immediately before trial. Therefore, the defendant is precluded from raising the issue on appeal, and the conviction is affirmed without reaching the merits of the constitutional claim.
[1] A defendant waives the right to challenge potential juror bias arising from interim service on similar cases if the defendant fails to raise or re-urge the objection imme…
[2] A defendant's failure to object to a jury selection procedure at a time when the trial court could have afforded further voir dire precludes the defendant from raising th…
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“interim jury service creates "a heightened danger of [juror] prejudice, which is especially great when the offenses are similar or the witnesses the same[,]" thus impairing a defendant's ability to intelligently exercise his challenges to prospective jurors”
Establishes the rationale for the federal rule protecting defendants against interim jury service effects on their peremptory challenges
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSpringer was convicted by jury verdict of burglary of a dwelling with battery upon the occupant under Florida law. The jury selection procedure used i…
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 Sixth Amendment Right To An Impartial Jury cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant/defendant seeks reversal of his conviction entered pursuant to a jury verdict finding him guilty of burglary of a dwelling with a battery upon the occupant, in violation of section 810.02, Florida Statutes (1983). It is appellant’s sole contention on appeal that the jury selection procedure utilized in this case deprived him of his right to a trial before a fair and impartial jury, guaranteed by the sixth amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 16, of the Florida Constitution. For the reasons which follow, we reject appellant’s contention and affirm his conviction.
Appellant seeks to rely on federal case law which holds that where the procedure which was employed in the instant case of selecting juries for a number of future criminal cases in a single proceeding results in a juror performing interim service on a similar case subsequent to his voir dire by a particular defendant and prior to that defendant’s trial, bias is inferred as a matter of law. United States v. Jefferson, 569 F. 2d 260 (5th Cir.1978) (remanding for determination of whether interim jury service involved similar case or same witnesses); see United States v. Mutchler, 559 F. 2d 955, 960 (5th Cir.1977) (interim jury service by previously selected jurors may deprive defendant of meaningful use of his peremptory challenges), modified, 566 F. 2d 1044 (1978); United States v. Mobley, 656 F. 2d 988 (5th Cir.1981) (defendant did not waive right to challenge jurors for cause in situation where interim service by jurors could be predicted and defendant had failed to exhaust peremptory challenges).
The rationale for these cases is that interim jury service creates “a heightened danger of [juror] prejudice, which is especially great when the offenses are similar or the witnesses the same[,]” thus impairing a defendant’s ability to intelligently exercise his challenges to prospective jurors. United States v. Franklin, 700 F. 2d 1241, 1242 (10th Cir.1983) (quoting Jefferson, 569 F. 2d at 262).
If a defendant objects just before trial to possible interim service by one or more of his jurors, the court must afford a supplemental voir dire. Franklin, 700 F. 2d at 1242; United States v. Capua, 656 F. 2d 1033 (5th Cir.1981).
However, this objection is waived if defendant fails to raise or reurge the objection immediately before the commencement of trial testimony when a supplemental voir dire could effectively be held. Capua, 656 F. 2d at 1036.1
In the instant case, defendant failed to object to the jury selection procedure at a time when the trial court could have afforded him the opportunity to conduct further voir dire on the question of potential prejudice and thereby effectively exercise his juror challenges. Thus, appellant is precluded from raising the issue on appeal. Capua, 656 F. 2d at 1036.
In view of our disposition, we find it unnecessary to proceed further to address the merits of appellant’s contention.
Affirmed.
. We note that Capua further stated that:
"while these procedures implement the right to trial by an impartial jury, they are but means to an end, not an inherent part of the sixth amendment. The provisions in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure fixing the number of peremptory challenges and the jurisprudence concerning the method as well as the grounds for making challenges for cause are not inherent components of the right to a trial by a fair and impartial jury.” Capua, 656 F. 2d at 1038 (footnote omitted).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stripling v. State, 664 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…twelfth juror. Defendant did not renew his objection at that time or at any time prior .to the swearing of the jury. See Joiner v. State, 618 So. 2d 174, 176 (Fla.1993); Brown v. State, 613 So. 2d 558, 559 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); cf. Springer v. State, 513 So. 2d 736, 737 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (in analogous circumstances, objection waived when not timely made). As to the second point on appeal, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s conclusion that the proffered statements were not statements against…
-
Tonnie Lee Martin v. State, 816 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…at any time prior to swearing of the jury); Casimiro v. State, 557 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 567 So. 2d 434 (Fla.1990) (defendant waived all objections concerning jury composition when defendant accepted jury panel); Springer v. State, 513 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (if defendant objects before trial to possible interim service by one or more of his jurors, court must afford supplemental voir dire; however, that objection is waived if the defendant fails to raise or re-urge the objection befo…
-
Slaughter v. State, 585 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…use of defect); Casimiro v. State, 557 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 567 So. 2d 434 (Fla.1990) (defendant waived objections and motions concerning jury composition when defendant expressly stated that he wanted the jury); Springer v. State, 513 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (defendant waived objection since he failed to object to jury selection procedure at a time when trial court could have afforded him opportunity to conduct further voir dire on the question of potential prejudice). The trial cour…
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Capua, 656 F.2d 1033 (5th Cir. 1981)
- United States v. Mutchler, 559 F.2d 955 (5th Cir. 1977)
- United States v. Jefferson, 569 F.2d 260 (5th Cir. 1978)
- United States v. Mutchler, 566 F.2d 1044 (5th Cir. 1978)
- Williams v. Califano, 566 F.2d 1044 (5th Cir. 1978)
- United States v. Franklin, 700 F.2d 1241 (10th Cir. 1983)
- United States v. Mobley, 656 F.2d 988 (5th Cir. 1981)