ERNST PIERRE, 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.
Ernst Pierre appeals his conviction and sentence in a Florida criminal case. The appellate court affirms, addressing Pierre's argument that the trial court erred by asking questions of witnesses on behalf of jurors, but finds that Pierre cannot challenge a procedure he himself initiated contrary to the court's announced procedure.
The trial court did not err because Pierre cannot assign as error a procedure he himself adopted in defiance of the trial court's announced procedure. While courts have discretion to allow juror questions, appellate courts strongly discourage promoting or encouraging such questions.
[1] A trial court has discretion to allow jurors to ask questions of witnesses during trial.
[2] While allowing jurors to ask questions of witnesses is permissible, trial courts are strongly discouraged from promoting or encouraging such practice.
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“Although discretion rests with the trial court, we strongly discourage trial courts from promoting jurors' questions or encouraging jurors to ask questions of witnesses. While allowing jurors to ask questions of witnesses is permissible, it is hard to discern the benefit of such a practice when weighed against the endless potential for error.”
Establishes the appellate court's policy discouraging juror questions despite acknowledging trial court discretion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePierre was convicted at trial. During the trial, the judge established a procedure for handling juror questions: jurors would submit written questions…
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 Evidence Code cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm appellant’s conviction and sentence, writing only to address appellant’s second point on appeal. Under this point, Pierre argues that the trial court erred in asking questions of the witnesses on behalf of the jurors. Pierre concedes that the trial court has discretion in allowing jurors to ask questions of witnesses during trial. Strawn v. State ex rel. Anderberg, 332 So. 2d 601 (Fla.1976); Shoultz v. State, 106 So. 2d 424 (Fla.1958); Ferrara v. State, 101 So. 2d 797 (Fla.1958).
Although discretion rests with the trial court, we strongly discourage trial courts from promoting jurors’ questions or encouraging jurors to ask questions of witnesses. While allowing jurors to ask questions of witnesses is permissible, it is hard to discern the benefit of such a practice when weighed against the endless potential for error. In the instant case, the court explained the procedure to be utilized should the jury have questions for a witness following examination by both counsel. In that event, written questions would be submitted to the judge who would review them in light of the evidence code. The court later explained that counsel would be given an opportunity to object to the questions at side-bar. If not objectionable, the question would be asked of the witness.
After the first witness testified, the judge allowed the jury to submit written questions. Pierre’s counsel was given an opportunity to object at side-bar outside the hearing of the jury, but chose to stand before the jury to announce his objection. In other words, the procedure Pierre now complains of was not the procedure announced and implemented by the court, but rather it was a procedure defense counsel voluntarily initiated. Under these circumstances Pierre may not now assign as error a procedure he adopted in defiance of the trial court’s announced procedure.
If a trial court is intent on allowing questions from jurors, we believe a better procedure would be to collect written questions from the jury, send the jury out of the courtroom, and then ask the questions aloud, allowing both counsel to object.
AFFIRMED. POLEN and FARMER, JJ., and ALDERMAN, JAMES E., Senior Justice, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bradford v. State, 722 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…ermit direct questions by jurors, and “[ejvery circuit court that has addressed this issue agrees.... State courts, moreover, have overwhelmingly placed juror questioning of witnesses within the trial judge’s discretion.”). See also Pierre v. State, 601 So. 2d 1309 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)(approving the procedure followed in this case). In Watson v. State, 651 So. 2d 1159, 1163 (Fla.1994), cert.denied mem., 516 U.S. 852, 116 S.Ct. 151, 133 L.Ed.2d 96 (1995), the Florida Supreme Court found “no merit” to a claim tha…
-
Coates v. State, 855 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…tioning. See Henderson v. State, 792 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Patterson v. State, 725 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Tanner v. State, 724 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Bradford v. State, 722 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Pierre v. State, 601 So. 2d 1309 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Scheel v. State, 350 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); see also § 40.50(2), Fla. Stat. (2002). Similarly, virtually all federal jurisdictions that have considered jury questioning have sanctioned it under proper controls. See Unit…1 / 2
-
Henderson v. State, 792 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…1, 133 L.Ed.2d 96 (1995). When this issue has arisen in Florida’s District Courts of Appeal, they have followed suit. See Patterson v. State, 725 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Bradford v. State, 722 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Pierre v. State, 601 So. 2d 1309 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Scheel v. State, 350 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). We note that in each of the cases cited above, the court spoke of a controlled procedure in place in the trial court to deal with the matter when it arose. In the case at hand…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ferrara v. State, 101 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 1958)
- Honorable David U. Strawn v. State of Fla. ex rel. Jon Anderberg, 332 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 1976)
- Shoultz v. State, 106 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 1958)