MONKET POLYNICE, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
The court held that a juror who is the stepfather of a testifying witness should have been excused for cause to satisfy the appearance of justice.
[1] A prospective juror must be excused for cause when their impartiality is reasonably in doubt, and close cases should be resolved in favor of excusing the juror.
[2] The impartiality of a jury is an absolute prerequisite to the justice system.
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 intelligenceDuring voir dire, a prospective juror revealed his stepson was a state witness. The trial judge denied the defense's motion to excuse the juror for ca…
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 Appearance Of Justice cases and more on FLexlaw
GARRETT, Judge.
Appellant seeks a new trial because the jury foreman was the step father of one of the state witnesses. We reverse and remand for a new trial.
During voir dire, a prospective juror, C.E. Harvey, informed the court that his step son was one of the police officers on the state’s witness list.- He also mentioned that he had a second son in law enforcement. The trial judge denied defense counsel’s motion to excuse Mr. Harvey for cause. Out of peremptory challenges, appellant asked for an additional one, but the trial judge refused to grant the request. Mr. Harvey became a member of the jury and its foreman. His step son, the arresting officer, testified at the trial.
Under subsection 913.03(9), Florida Statutes (1987), a prospective juror must be excused if he or she is related within the third degree to the person who made the complaint that led to the prosecution. The state argues that subsection (9) did not apply to the step son since another officer brought the criminal charges. Under subsection 913.03(10), Florida Statutes (1987), a prospective juror must be excused if he or she cannot be impartial. The state argues that Mr. Harvey demonstrated his impartiality when he stated, “I think I’d be fair.” We need not address whether Mr. Harvey should have been excused for cause under either subsection. Instead, we hold that Mr. Harvey should have been excused for cause for the reason expressed by this court in Sydleman v. Benson, 463 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985):
[T]he impartiality of the fact finders is an absolute prerequisite to our system of justice. Close cases should be resolved in favor of excusing the juror rather than leaving a doubt as to his or her impartiality.
In order to satisfy the appearance of justice, a sworn jury should not include as its foreman, the step father of an officer who testified in the case.
As to the remaining point on appeal, the state concedes that a portion of Officer Mosley’s testimony should have been excluded as hearsay evidence.
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL.
DOWNEY, J., concurs.
STONE, J., dissents without opinion.