ANTHONY L. RICHARDSON, 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 erred in refusing to strike the venire panel when a prospective juror's exchange with the prosecutor implied the defendant was a convicted felon.
The trial court used a single venire for three cases, and one prospective juror, a corrections officer, indicated she knew the defendant. Their exchan…
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 Resisting Arrest With Violence cases and more on FLexlaw
[*224] BLUE, Judge.
Anthony L. Richardson appeals his convictions for resisting arrest with violence and battery on a law enforcement officer. He argues that the trial court erred by refusing to strike the venire panel. We agree and reverse.
Over defense counsel’s objection, the trial court used a single venire to select juries for three criminal cases. One member of the venire worked as a corrections officer at Polk Correctional Institution. Her employment was discussed several times. When selection began for Richardson’s jury, the corrections officer indicated that she knew him. The exchange between the prosecutor and this prospective member of the jury suggested that she knew Richardson through her employment, implying that he was a convicted felon who previously served time. Defense counsel objected and requested that the trial court strike the panel. The request was denied.
Under article I, section 16, of the Florida Constitution, and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.251, an accused has the right to trial by an impartial jury. Richardson argues that he was deprived of this right based on the exchange between the corrections officer and the prosecutor. We agree. See Wilding v. State, 427 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (holding that a defendant’s right to an impartial trial is violated when unrelated charges are revealed to jury during voir dire).. We conclude, based on the record before us, that the trial court erred in denying the motion to strike the venire panel.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand.
ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and LAZZARA, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Boatman v. State, 364 So. 3d 1005 (Fla. 2024)…rd, any error was harmless. As the State notes, “the court did not inform the [prospective jurors] of anything that they would be unable to conclude on their own." The cases cited by Boatman are easily distinguished. See, e.g., Richardson v. State, 666 So. 2d 223, 224 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (involving an exchange between prosecutor and venire member "implying that [defendant] was a convicted felon who previously served time"). We deny this claim. Challenges for Cause Boatman argues the court erred in denying h…
-
Brower v. State, 727 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…d the witness’s testimony, defense counsel moved that the court strike [*1027] the entire panel. The trial court denied the motion. Appellant asserts the court abused its discretion in failing to strike the venire and relies on Richardson v. State, 666 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). The Richardson court held that the defendant’s constitutional right to trial by an impartial jury was denied when a prospective juror, who worked as a corrections officer, indicated she knew the defendant through her employment,…
-
Holt v. State, 987 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…t guilty of armed robbery. This appeal follows. On direct appeal, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to strike the jury. Defendants have a constitutional right to a trial by an impartial jury. See Richardson v. State, 666 So. 2d 223, 224 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). This right is lost when there is a possibility that jurors are unfairly prejudiced by the knowledge of additional charges against a defendant other than those being tried. See Jackson v. State, 729 So. 2d 947, 950 (Fla. 1st…
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
- Wilding v. State, 427 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)