HUMBERTO FARIAS, 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.
Humberto Farias appeals his cocaine trafficking conviction, arguing that the trial court improperly denied his motion to exclude a juror for cause, forcing him to waste a peremptory challenge and later seat an objectionable juror. The appellate court reverses and remands for a new trial due to the trial court's error in denying the cause challenge.
The trial court committed reversible error by refusing to excuse juror Brechner for cause despite his expressed bias against Latin individuals and his admission that his prejudicial opinions could not be changed. Forcing a defendant to exhaust peremptory challenges on jurors who should have been excused for cause violates the defendant's right to exercise peremptory challenges and requires reversal and a new trial.
[1] A juror must be excused for cause if there is a reasonable doubt as to their ability to render an impartial verdict solely on the evidence and law presented.
[2] A trial court errs by denying a motion to excuse a juror for cause when the juror's statements suggest potential bias or prejudice.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 there is a basis for a reasonable doubt as to any juror's possessing that state of mind which will enable him to render an impartial verdict solely on the evidence submitted and the law announced at the trial, he should be excused.”
States the legal standard for determining whether a juror should be excused for cause due to bias or prejudice.
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, prospective juror Brechner made comments suggesting bias against Latin defendants, stating he had watched Dade County become "Latin-…
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 Juror Competency cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Humberto Farias appeals his conviction for trafficking in cocaine. We reverse and remand for a new trial on the following briefly stated analysis.
Farias argues that he was forced to use a peremptory challenge to exclude a juror when the trial court denied his motion to exclude the juror for cause. Thereafter, an objectionable juror was seated when the defendant had used all of his remaining peremptory challenges and the trial court refused defendant’s subsequent requests for additional peremptory challenges.
The test for determining juror competency is whether the juror can lay aside any bias or prejudice and render his verdict solely upon the evidence presented and the instructions on the law given by the court. State v. Williams, 465 So. 2d 1229 (Fla.1985); Davis v. State, 461 So. 2d 67 (Fla.1984), cert. denied, 473 U.S. 913, 105 S.Ct. 3540, 87 L.Ed.2d 663 (1985); Jefferson v. State, 489 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 494 So. 2d 1153 (Fla.1986); Waddell v. State, 458 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), review denied, 466 So. 2d 218 (Fla.1985). If there is a basis for a reasonable doubt as to any juror’s possessing that state of mind which will enable him to render an impartial verdict solely on the evidence submitted and the law announced at the trial, he should be excused. Moore v. State, 525 So. 2d 870 (Fla.1988); Hill v. State, 477 So. 2d 553, 556 (Fla.1985), appeal after remand, 515 So. 2d 176 (Fla.1987) cert. denied, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 1302, 99 L.Ed.2d 512 (1988); Jefferson, 489 So. 2d at 212; Graham v. State, 470 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) citing Singer v. State, 109 So. 2d 7 (Fla.1959).
In the case at bar, during voir dire, prospective juror Brechner responded to the questions of counsel in a manner which was arguably prejudicial to Latin defendants such as Farias. Brechner commented to the prosecutor: “Well, I’ve lived in Dade County 33 years, before there was cocaine and drugs and before a lot of Latin people, more or less, came and took over the area.” Later, upon questioning by Fa-rias’ attorney, Brechner reiterated: “I grew up in this town for the last 33 years. I watched it change. I watched it Latin-ized. I have certain feelings about that.” Finally, counsel for Farias stated: “You can’t change that cumulative experience and the formation of those opinions,” to which Brechner responded: “Probably not.” While Brechner asserted that he had no animosity towards Farias, personally, the doubts about this juror were not adequately resolved by the trial court and we find it was error not to excuse him for cause. See Club West, Inc. v. Tropigas of Florida, Inc., 514 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), review denied, 523 So. 2d 579 (Fla.1988).
As noted above, the defendant had to use a peremptory challenge to exclude Brechner. Farias was then forced to accede to an objectionable juror because he had by then exhausted his peremptory challenges. It is error for a court to force a party to exhaust his peremptory challenges on persons who should be excused for cause since it has the effect of abridging the right to exercise peremptory challenges. Smith v. State, 516 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); see Leon v. State, 396 So. 2d 203, 205 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 407 So. 2d 1106 (Fla.1981); see also Anderson v. State, 463 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), review denied, 475 So. 2d 693 (Fla.1985), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 2870, 101 L.Ed.2d 905 (1988). Because of this error, defendant’s convictions must be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
On a second point, Farias claims that the prosecution failed to prove that he had actual knowledge that the substance in his possession was cocaine, this being a necessary element of the offense for which he was convicted. See § 893.135, Fla.Stat. (1987). We affirm the trial court’s decision as to the sufficiency of that evidence. See Kresbach v. State, 462 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
Accordingly, we reverse the defendant’s conviction and remand for a new trial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Busby v. State, 894 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 2004)…anel. See Trotter, 576 So. 2d at 692. The harm suffered by the defendant under such a scenario is having been forced to accept a juror he or she would have peremptorily excused but for the need to remedy the trial court’s error. See Farias v. State, 540 So. 2d 201, 203 (Fla. 3d DCA .1989) (“It is error for a court to force a party to exhaust his peremptory challenges on persons who should be excused for cause since it has the effect of abridging the right to exercise peremptory challenges.”); Smith v. State,…
-
King v. State, 622 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…gainst prospective juror Zapata. We agree. If there is any reasonable doubt that a prospective juror cannot render a verdict based solely on the evidence submitted and the trial court’s instruction of the law, he should be excused. Farias v. State, 540 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). There is no doubt that a reasonable doubt existed as to prospective juror Zapata. Prospective juror Zapata stated that he thought that the defendant looked liked the unknown assailant who stole his car from him at gunpoint and th…
-
James v. State, 731 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…the cumulative effect of Mr. Parker’s comments raise a reasonable doubt concerning his ability to be impartial, it was manifest error to deny the defendant’s challenge for cause. See Gill v. State, 683 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Farias v. State, 540 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Accordingly, the defendant’s conviction is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial. Reversed and remanded. . Apparently referring to the belief that ostriches bury their heads in the sand. This belief may be attribut…
Authorities Cited (15 total)
- Singer v. State, 109 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 1959)
- Hill v. State, 477 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 1985)
- Davis v. State, 461 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 1984)
- Leon v. State, 396 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Gonzalez-Mares v. United States, 473 U.S. 913 (U.S. 1985)
- Hill v. State, 515 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 1987)
- Alton Moore v. State, 525 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 1988)
- State v. Williams, 465 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 1985)
- Club W., Inc. v. Tropigas OF Fla., Inc., 514 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Jefferson v. State, 489 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)