JAMES KING, 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.
Defendant James King was convicted and challenges his jury composition on appeal, arguing the trial court erred in denying his challenge for cause against a prospective juror who admitted bias. The appellate court agreed and reversed, finding the juror should have been excused and that forcing the defendant to use a peremptory challenge on a biased juror violated his right to a fair jury.
Yes. The trial court erred in denying the challenge for cause against Zapata. Because reasonable doubt existed that Zapata could render an impartial verdict based solely on the evidence and jury instructions, and the trial court's rehabilitation of the juror was insufficient, Zapata should have been excused for cause. Forcing the defendant to exhaust a peremptory challenge on a juror who should have been excused for cause, and then denying an additional peremptory challenge, requires reversal and a new trial.
[1] A prospective juror must be excused for cause if there is any reasonable doubt that the juror can render a verdict based solely on the evidence and the law.
[2] A trial court's attempt to rehabilitate a prospective juror who expresses bias may be insufficient to overcome the initial doubt.
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“If there is any reasonable doubt that a prospective juror cannot render a verdict based solely on the evidence submitted and the trial court's instruction of the law, he should be excused.”
Establishes the legal standard for excusing jurors for cause based on bias or inability to be impartial.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring jury selection, prospective juror Zapata stated that defendant King resembled an unknown assailant who had stolen his car at gunpoint, and 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 Rehabilitation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
During voir dire, prospective juror Zapata stated that the defendant, James King, resembled the unknown assailant who stole his car from him at gunpoint. Zapata noted that the defendant was wearing a red jacket and that the unknown assailant also wore a red jacket. The following colloquy took place:
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Do you think that you would be unable to look at Mr. King and just not think about what hap pened to you and disconnect all of that from him?
[MR. ZAPATA]: The red jacket is something. I’m not really sure.
THE COURT: I’ll ask Mr. Zapata, do you believe that you can put your experience out of your mind and just judge this case on a one on one basis?
[MR. ZAPATA]: Yes, Your Honor, I believe that I can.
The defense challenged prospective juror Zapata for cause. The trial court denied the challenge. Thereafter, the defense used one of its peremptory challenges to excuse prospective juror Zapata. The defense requested an additional peremptory challenge to strike an objectionable juror. The trial court denied the request. The objectionable juror sat on the jury.
The defendant was found guilty as charged. The defendant moved for a new trial alleging that the trial court erred in denying his challenge for cause. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for new trial. At a later date, the trial court reversed its prior ruling and reinstated the defendant’s convictions and sentences. This appeal follows.
The defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his challenge for cause against prospective juror Zapata. We agree.
If there is any reasonable doubt that a prospective juror cannot render a verdict based solely on the evidence submitted and the trial court’s instruction of the law, he should be excused. Farias v. State, 540 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). There is no doubt that a reasonable doubt existed as to prospective juror Zapata. Prospective juror Zapata stated that he thought that the defendant looked liked the unknown assailant who stole his car from him at gunpoint and that he was not sure whether he could put this experience out of his mind when judging the defendant. Moreover, the trial court’s attempt to rehabilitate juror Zapata was insufficient. See Garcia v. State, 570 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Since the defendant was forced to exhaust his peremptory challenges on prospective juror Zapata, a juror who should have been excused for cause, and the trial court refused his request for an additional peremptory challenge to strike an objectionable juror who eventually sat on the jury, we reverse and remand for a new trial. Trotter v. State, 576 So. 2d 691 (Fla.1990); Pentecost v. State, 545 So. 2d 861 (Fla.1989).
In light of our decision, we do not address the remaining issues raised on appeal.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 638 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…ore v. State, 525 So. 2d 870, 872 (Fla.1988); Hill v. State, 477 So. 2d 553 (Fla.1985), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 993, 108 S.Ct. 1302, 99 L.Ed.2d 512 (1988); Singer, 109 So. 2d at 23; Chapman v. State, 593 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); King v. State, 622 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Auriemme v. State, 501 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), rev. denied, 506 So. 2d 1043 (Fla.1987). Because impartiality of the finders of fact is an absolute prerequisite to our system of justice, we have adhered to the proposition t…1 / 3
-
Martinez v. State, 795 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…sk v. State, 446 So. 2d 1038, 1041 (Fla.1984)). “The juror should be excused if there is any reasonable doubt about the juror’s ability to render an impartial verdict.” Id; see also Coggins v. State, 677 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); King v. State, 622 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Price v. State, 538 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Jefferson v. State, 489 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). The law is also clear that close calls on the issue of juror competency should be resolved in favor of removal. In Williams…
-
Coggins v. State, 677 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…te, 446 So. 2d 1038, 1041 (Fla.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 873, 105 S.Ct. 229, 83 L.Ed.2d 158 (1984)). “The juror should be excused if there is any reasonable doubt about the juror’s ability to render an impartial verdict.” Id; see also King v. State, 622 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)(holding that a prospective juror should have been excused for cause after he asserted that he was the victim of a crime by an unknown assailant who resembled the defendant and the juror was uncertain whether he could put aside thi…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Trotter v. State, 576 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 1990)
- Bell v. State, 545 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 1989)
- Pentecost v. State, 545 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 1989)
- Melvyn M. Garcia v. State, 570 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Farias v. State, 540 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)