CARL LEWIS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 1992-02-19
No. 91-0648
GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and WARNER and GARRETT, JJ., concur.
593 So. 2d 1195 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1992)

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.


Holding

The court held that the trial court erred by refusing to allow the defendant to exercise a peremptory challenge to a prospective juror after a 'double pass' had been announced.


Facts & Procedural History

During jury selection, the trial court refused to allow the defendant to strike a prospective juror, stating that a 'double pass' had occurred. The de…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Carl Lewis appeals his conviction and sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He claims that he should have been allowed to “back strike” a prospective juror. We agree and reverse and remand for a new trial.

At trial, the judge announced that the parties would proceed to exercise their challenges to jurors until there was a “double pass.” The state excused one juror, appellant excused another, the state excused another, appellant passed, the state passed, and appellant attempted to excuse another juror. The trial judge, however, would not allow appellant to excuse any more jurors because there had been a “double pass.” Appellant timely objected to the trial court’s refusal to excuse the challenged juror. A defendant may challenge a prospective juror at anytime before the jury is sworn. Fla.Crim.P. 3.310. Until the jury is sworn, a trial court cannot infringe upon a defendant’s right to challenge any juror, either peremptorily or for cause. Gilliam v. State, 514 So. 2d 1098, 1099 (Fla.1987). To deny a defendant this right is per se reversible error. Id.

In light of our holding, we consider the remaining issues to be moot.

REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL.

GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and WARNER and GARRETT, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw