DEAN HIGHTOWER, 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.
Dean Hightower was convicted in a criminal trial where a juror was less than candid during voir dire about knowing members of the State Attorney's office. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial because a juror failed to disclose that he knew an assistant state attorney and played on a softball team with him, and the prosecutor knew of this relationship but failed to divulge it to the judge.
The court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial because the juror's less-than-candid responses during voir dire, combined with the prosecutor's failure to disclose the known relationship between the juror and assistant state attorney, violated the defendant's right to a fair trial and an impartial jury.
[1] A new trial is warranted when a juror is less than candid or provides inaccurate answers during voir dire regarding their acquaintances in the State Attorney's Office.
[2] A juror's failure to disclose a relationship with an assistant state attorney, even if initially unaware of the attorney's specific role, constitutes grounds for a new tr…
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“Because a juror was less than candid (at the very least, his answer was inaccurate) with the court and the attorneys during voir dire, we reverse for a new trial.”
The court's holding establishing that the juror's inaccurate voir dire responses require reversal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring voir dire, a juror denied knowing anyone in the State Attorney's Office on several occasions. However, the juror actually knew an assistant sta…
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 Prosecutorial Duty To Disclose cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, Judge.
Because a juror was less than candid (at the very least, his answer was inaccurate) with the court and the attorneys during voir dire, we reverse for a new trial.1 On several occasions during voir dire, the juror denied that he knew anyone in the State Attorney’s Office. Not only did the juror know an assistant state attorney, but he also played on a softball team with him and did so twice during the term of this trial.
The juror contended that he did not know that this particular lawyer worked for the State Attorney at the time the question was asked. However, because the lawyer came into the courtroom and consulted with the assistant state attorney prosecuting the case, and as a result of a consultation the juror initiated that evening with his girlfriend, a court reporter, the juror became aware that one of his softball teammates was an assistant state attorney. After the trial and upon further inquiry, the juror admitted that he knew of the lawyer’s connection with the State Attorney’s Office shortly after the trial commenced but failed to bring to the court’s attention the fact that the answer he gave during voir dire was inaccurate.
Even more troubling, however, is the fact that the assistant state attorney who knew the juror revealed this fact to the prosecutor early in the trial and still this information was not divulged to the judge. If the relationship had been properly revealed in a timely manner, this problem might have been averted by permitting defendant, if he so elected, to proceed with an alternate juror. REVERSED and REMANDED for a new trial.
W. SHARP, J., concurs.
GOSHORN, J., concurs specially, with opinion.
GOSHORN, Judge, concurring specially.
I concur with Judge Harris’s opinion and write only to point out that regardless of whether the juror knew at the time of voir dire that the attorney in question worked for the state attorney’s office, the record is clear that the juror knew there were several attorneys on the juror’s softball team. Nevertheless, he remained silent and failed to respond to the following question posed by defense counsel:
Now, His Honor and the prosecutor asked you whether or not you knew anybody in the State Attorney’s office. Do you have any friends that are lawyers that — whether they do criminal work or civil work or that type of thing — that you associate with?
(Emphasis supplied). The question was clearly designed to elicit a response, which if candidly given, would'have revealed the relationship which requires retrial in this case.
. Skiles v. Ryder Truck Lines, Inc., 267 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972), cert, denied, 275 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 1973), quoting Drury v. Franke, 247 Ky. 758, 57 S.W. 2d 969 (1933):
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ferryman v. State, 919 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…at the potential juror knew some of the witnesses that might be called by the State — appears to be a sufficient basis for the trial court to allow the challenge. See, e.g., Adams v. State, 646 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); cf, Hightower v. State, 666 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). Moreover, the trial court reasonably noted that Mr. Ferryman had previously struck two African-American potential jurors, and that a third juror of the same race remained on the panel and served on the jury. As the ruling of the…
Authorities Cited
- Decker v. State, 267 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)
- Reasbeck v. State of Fla. ex rel. Jessie Wallace, Jr., 275 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 1973)
- Frederick v. Frederick, 267 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)