ANNETTE MARIE GREEN, 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 the trial court committed reversible error by striking two jurors without allowing examination and by allowing the state to use peremptory challenges to remove black jurors.
Appellant objected to the trial court striking two jurors who expressed doubts about impartiality due to feelings about alcohol and drug use, without …
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 Neil Challenge cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant raises several issues, two of which we conclude to have merit. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
The first is that the trial court erred in striking two jurors who expressed doubt that they could be impartial due to their feelings about alcohol and drug use. Appellant objected at trial to the trial court’s failure to allow appellant to examine either juror before they were excused. Appellant appropriately relies on O’Connell v. State, 480 So. 2d 1284 (Fla.1985), in which the supreme court found the trial court committed reversible error when it did not allow defense counsel to examine excluded jurors on voir dire.
In O’Connell, two jurors who, when examined by the prosecutor, stated that they were opposed to the death penalty were excluded for cause by the trial court over defense counsel’s objection that he had had no opportunity to examine these jurors or try to rehabilitate them. Id. at 1286. The supreme court noted the difference between the situation in O’Connell and cases in which the trial court is justified in curtailing voir dire because of the need to control unreasonably repetitious and argumentative voir dire questioning. Id. at 1286-87.
As in O’Connell, no examination of the two jurors was permitted in the instant case. Applying the holding of O’Connell to the instant case leads to the conclusion that the trial court did err reversibly.
The second is that the trial court erred in allowing the state to use peremptory challenges to remove two black jurors. On retrial the trial court and prosecutor are obligated to comply with the requirements of State v. Neil, 457 So. 2d 481, 486-87 (Fla.1984); Roundtree v. State, 546 So. 2d 1042 (Fla.1989); Shelton v. State, 563 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); and Floyd v. State, 569 So. 2d 1225, 1229 (Fla.1990).
GLICKSTEIN, J., and WALDEN, JAMES H., (Retired), Associate Judge, concur. STONE, J., dissents with opinion.
STONE, Judge,
dissenting.
I would affirm. In my judgment, there was no abuse of discretion as to either issue.
The court’s decision to excuse the jurors is supported by the record. The defense had participated in voir dire, prior to the judge’s questioning, through a written questionnaire. This is not a capital case and does not involve, as did O’Connell v. State, the prejudice that accrues to a defendant facing a death sentence who is not afforded an opportunity to rehabilitate a potential juror expressing concerns about the imposition of capital punishment. I would note that the trial court, here, did afford the jurors the opportunity to rehabilitate themselves and, in any event, the appellant has not demonstrated prejudice. I also note that the issue of alcohol and drug use was relevant as there was evidence that the victim had consumed cocaine and alcohol.
As to the Neil issue, an inquiry was made and the trial court determined that the state’s challenges were not racially motivated. There is record support for trial court conclusions that the bases for the challenges are race neutral, reasonable and not a pretext. See generally, Reed v. State, 560 So. 2d 203 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 230, 112 L.Ed.2d 184 (1990).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Melendez v. State, 700 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…questioning, that there was no reasonable basis to anticipate that the juror could return a verdict against the defendant.” Fleckinger v. State, 642 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), rev. de [*793] nied, 650 So. 2d 989 (1994); see also Green v. State, 575 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)(trial court erred in striking two jurors who expressed doubt that they could be impartial due to their feelings about alcohol and drug use.) In this case, we hold that' the trial court .abused its discretion by not affording appe…
-
Fleckinger v. State, 642 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…We address only one issue. Appellant contends that the court’s excusing a prospective juror for cause during voir dire, after questioning by the court but without allowing defense counsel to examine the juror, mandates reversal under Green v. State, 575 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). See also O’Connell v. State, 480 So. 2d 1284 (Fla.1985); Francis v. State, 579 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). During voir dire, the trial court asked the prospective jurors if they had any religious reasons which would prevent…
-
Irimi v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 234 So. 3d 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)…al court erred in excluding prospective jurors when it first allowed the prosecutor— but not defense counsel—to question them. Id. at 1286-87. This amounted to a due process violation, and warranted a new trial. Id. at 1287; see also Green v. State, 575 So. 2d 796, 797 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (applying O'Connell and holding the trial court erred in striking two venire members, who doubted their ability to be impartial, without first giving the defendant an opportunity to question them). The trial court also cite…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Neil, 457 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1984)
- Floyd v. State, 569 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 1990)
- Grover Reed v. State, 560 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 1990)
- Roundtree v. State, 546 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 1989)
- O'Connell v. State, 480 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 1985)
- THE Florida BAR v. Greenberg, 480 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 1985)
- State v. Charlemond Florius, 563 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Shelton v. State, 563 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)