MICHAEL BARRY GOSHA, 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.
Imposing extreme time limits on voir dire examination is unreasonable and an abuse of discretion.
Defendant's second trial for grand theft had strict one-to-three minute time limits imposed on counsel for questioning prospective jurors. Defense cou…
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.300(B) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Michael Barry Gosha appeals from a conviction for grand theft. For the reasons which follow, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
Gosha’s first trial on the grand theft charges resulted in a mistrial. At his second trial on those charges, the trial court imposed on both the state and defense counsel one-to three-minute time limits on questioning prospective jurors. The trial court thus forced defense counsel to end voir dire before he had finished his questioning.
We hold that as a matter of law, it is unreasonable and an abuse of discretion to limit counsel’s voir dire examinations of each potential juror to one-to-three minutes.
In Florida, a reasonable voir dire examination of prospective jurors by counsel is assured by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.300(b) (footnote omitted). The purpose of voir dire is to obtain a “fair and impartial jury to try the issues in the cause.” (Citation omitted.) Time restrictions or limits on numbers of questions can result in the loss of this fundamental right. (Emphasis added.)
Williams v. State, 424 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).1 Although a trial court has “considerable discretion in determining the extent of counsel’s examination of prospective jurors,” id. at 149, here, the extreme time constraints imposed by the court prevented counsel from pursuing a reasonable voir dire examination.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
. In Williams, the court stated that even twenty minutes of voir dire per side "was a very short time.” 424 So. 2d at 149 n. 6.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
O'Hara v. State, 642 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…e number of questions results in the loss of this fundamental right. Compare Zitnick v. State, 576 So. 2d 1381 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); James v. State, 575 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Pineda v. State, 571 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Gosha v. State, 534 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Williams v. State, 424 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) with Valdez v. State, 585 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Brunson v. State, 492 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Stano v. State, 473 So. 2d 1282 (Fla.1985). Under the facts in…
-
Pineda v. State, 571 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…erable discretion in determining the extent of counsel’s examination of the venire, we have held it is unreasonable and an abuse of discretion to limit counsel’s voir dire examinations of each potential juror to one-to-three minutes. Gosha v. State, 534 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). The limitation in this case ran afoul of the Gosha rule. It prevented Pineda’s counsel from adequately following up in an area of inquiry which proved important in light of the charges and the theory of defense. Further, the seve…
-
Andros Domonic Miller v. State, 785 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…ns or limitations on the number of questions results in the loss of this fundamental right.”); Zitnick v. State, 576 So. 2d 1381-82 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (on confession of error); Pineda v. State, 571 So. 2d 105, 106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Gosha v. State, 534 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Similarly, the trial court may not deny defense counsel an opportunity to question jurors individually. See Francis v. State, 579 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). The trial court in this case effectively denied individual questioni…
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
- Williams v. State, 424 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)