SEE SMITH
v.
STATE
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.
Appellant Alfonso was convicted of Racing on Highway. The appellate court reversed because the trial court abused its discretion by denying a for-cause challenge to a juror who expressed a predisposition to believe arrested individuals are guilty, and by denying an additional peremptory challenge after Appellant exhausted his strikes trying to remove problematic jurors.
The trial court abused its discretion and committed reversible error by refusing to grant the for-cause challenge to Ms. Hernandez and an additional peremptory challenge to remove an identified juror who sat on the case. Where a prospective juror expressly admits a predisposition to consider an individual guilty merely because of arrest or trial, and is not rehabilitated, denying the cause challenge and any additional peremptory challenge is reversible error.
[1] A prospective juror's predisposition to consider an individual guilty merely because they have been arrested, if not rehabilitated, warrants a cause challenge.
[2] Refusal to grant a cause challenge to a biased juror constitutes an abuse of discretion.
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“The law is clear that where a prospective juror expressly admits a predisposition to consider an individual guilty merely because he or she has been arrested or has a trial, and is not rehabilitated, it is an abuse of the court's discretion and reversible error to refuse to grant a cause challenge as to that juror and an additional peremptory challenge of an identified juror who sits on the case.”
This establishes the legal standard for reversible error when a trial court denies a for-cause challenge to a biased juror and fails to grant an additional peremptory challenge.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring voir dire, prospective juror Ms. Hernandez was asked if she thought innocent people get arrested for things they didn't do. She responded that …
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 Bias cases and more on FLexlaw
Before POWELL, ARNOLD, and LAUTEN, J.J.
PER CURIAM.
FINAL ORDER REVERSING TRIAL COURT
Appellant Alfonso appeals his conviction for Racing on Highway, claiming that the court erred in denying his cause challenge to a prospective juror and his request for an additional peremptory challenge. Having carefully reviewed the briefs, the record on appeal and the trial transcript, we dispense with oral argument pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.320, and reverse. 2 of 3
During voir dire of the panel the following exchange took place between Mr. Bleakly Appellant’s trial counsel, and a prospective juror: MR. BLEAKLEY: Okay. What do you think, Ms. Hernandez? Do you think that innocent people get arrested for stuff they didn’t do?
MS. HERNANDEZ: Well, I would say that if they get arrested, they did something bad. So –
The prosecutor and the judge did not attempt to rehabilitate Ms. Hernandez. No further questions of any kind were asked of her. Appellant’s counsel challenged Ms. Hernandez for cause. The prosecutor objected to the challenge.
Later in the proceedings when the court announced the six names for the jury, Appellant’s counsel renewed his cause challenge, saying:
MR. BLEAKLEY: – the question – I believe she [Ms. Hernandez] said that if You’re arrested, it’s because you probably committed a crime. I believe that’s what she said.
THE COURT: And what’s wrong with that?
The court then denied the challenge for cause as to Ms. Hernandez. Appellant’s counsel used a back-strike to remove Ms. Hernandez. The court noticed that Appellant had used up all of his peremptory challenges. Appellant’s counsel then stated that “we don’t accept the jury” and requested an additional peremptory challenge, stating that he would use the additional peremptory challenge to remove Juror 13 or Juror 8, Mr. Winemuller. His request was denied, and Mr. Winemuller remained on the jury which heard the case.
The law is clear that where a prospective juror expressly admits a predisposition to consider an individual guilty merely because he or she has been arrested or has a trial, and is not rehabilitated, it is an abuse of the court’s discretion and reversible error to refuse to grant a cause challenge as to that juror and an additional peremptory challenge of an identified juror who sits 3 of 3 on the case. See Smith v. State, 907 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Rodas v. State, 821 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). This is exactly what happened in the case before us, and contrary to the State’s argument, the point was preserved for appeal. It is unnecessary to address Appellant’s remaining points.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
DONE AND ORDERED at Orlando, Florida this __25th___ day of _May_____, 2012.
_/S/________________________
ROM W. POWELL Senior Judge
/S/
_/S/_________________________ C. JEFFERY ARNOLD FREDERICK J. LAUTEN Circuit Judge Circuit Judge
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing order was furnished to Kimberly M. Devries, Assistant Public Defender, 435 N. Orange Avenue, Ste. 400, Orlando, Florida 32801; Dugald McMillan, Assistant State Attorney, 415 N. Orange Avenue, Ste. 200, Orlando, Florida 32802-1673; and Honorable Faye Allen, 425 N. Orange Avenue, Orlando, Florida 32801, by mail, this __30th__ day of __May_______________, 2012.
_/S/________________________________
Judicial Assistant
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Mainon Rodas v. State, 821 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Smith v. State, 907 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)