ANTHONY CANTY, 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.
Anthony Canty appeals his jury conviction for robbery, challenging the trial court's refusal to excuse a juror for cause. The court reverses and remands because the prospective juror had prior adversarial contact with defense counsel (who represented a perpetrator in the juror's own burglary and had deposed her), creating reasonable doubt about impartiality that required her excusal.
The trial court erred and the juror should have been excused for cause. The improper denial of a challenge for cause constitutes reversible error requiring reversal and remand for a new trial.
[1] A prospective juror should be excused for cause if there is a reasonable doubt as to their ability to render an impartial verdict based solely on the evidence and the law…
[2] Close cases involving challenges to the impartiality of potential jurors should be resolved in favor of excusing the juror.
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“The test for determining the competence of a juror is not whether he will be able to control any bias or prejudice but rather whether he may lay aside those considerations and render his verdict solely upon the evidence presented and the instructions on the law given to him by the court. Where there is any reasonable doubt as to a juror's possessing the requisite state of mind so as to render an impartial verdict, the juror should be excused and the defendant given the benefit of the doubt.”
Establishes the legal standard for juror impartiality and excusal for cause
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Canty was convicted of robbery by jury. During jury selection, the defense sought to excuse a prospective juror for cause. This juror had pr…
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 Impartiality cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Anthony Canty, appeals his conviction for robbery after he was tried by a jury. The issues he raises concern the selection of the jury. We reverse and remand.
Appellant argues that the trial court erred by refusing to grant a defense challenge for cause of a prospective juror. The prospective juror was previously burglarized and appellant’s counsel represented one of the perpetrators in this juror’s burglary. More significantly, appellant’s counsel had deposed the juror concerning her burglary.
The State argues that the juror’s prior contact with defense counsel is not disposi-tive of the issue, as long as the juror can express her ability to remain impartial.1 The State disputes that the challenged juror should have been excused for cause.
We find the juror should have been excused:
The test for determining the competence of a juror is not whether he will be able to control any bias or prejudice but rather whether he may lay aside those considerations and render his verdict solely upon the evidence presented and the instructions on the law given to him by the court. Where there is any reasonable doubt as to a juror’s possessing the requisite state of mind so as to render an impartial verdict, the juror should be excused and the defendant given the benefit of the doubt.
Leon v. State, 396 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 407 So. 2d 1106 (Fla.1981).
Nothing can raise more doubts about a juror’s impartiality than a previous contact with a party, or their attorney. Johnson v. Reynolds, 97 Fla. 591, 121 So. 793 (1929); Henry v. State, 586 So. 2d 1335 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Ortiz v. State, 543 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Price v. State, 538 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Jefferson v. State, 489 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 494 So. 2d 1153 (Fla.1986). Sikes v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company, 487 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 497 So. 2d 1218 (Fla.1986).
As a result of the failure of the trial court to excuse the juror for cause, appellant was compelled to use a peremptory challenge. Thereafter, appellant exhausted his peremptory challenges, and was denied an additional peremptory to strike a juror which was eventually seated. In this case, the contact between the attorney and the juror had been of an adversarial nature. This juror should have been excused. The improper denial of a challenge for cause, under the circumstances of this case, constitutes reversible error. See Trotter v. State, 576 So. 2d 691 (Fla.1990); Hill v. State, 477 So. 2d 553 (Fla.1985); Henry v. State, 586 So. 2d 1335 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).
Since the foregoing issue is dispositive, it is not necessary to address appellant’s second issue. Accordingly, we reverse appellant’s conviction and remand for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
. We note, additionally, that the juror stated, on the record: "I can’t be fair.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Trotter v. State, 576 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 1990)
- Hill v. State, 477 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 1985)
- Johnson v. Wilhelmina Reynolds, 97 Fla. 591 (Fla. 1929)
- Leon v. State, 396 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Price v. State, 538 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Jefferson v. State, 489 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Ortiz v. State, 543 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Eustache Henry v. State, 586 So. 2d 1335 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Sikes v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 487 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)