TERRANCE WILLIAMS, 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.
In a criminal appeal, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment and sentence where the trial court denied the defendant's motion to strike the jury venire. The defendant claimed that a prosecutor's statement during voir dire that the prosecution's burden was not to prove guilt to '100 percent certainty' tainted the jury panel despite the trial court's curative instruction.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to strike the venire. While remarks minimizing the reasonable doubt standard from the court itself constitute error, a prosecutor's similar statement during voir dire can be cured by the trial court's instruction that lawyers' statements are not law and by a proper jury charge on reasonable doubt.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to strike a jury venire when a prosecutor's comment during voir dire regarding reasonable doubt is cured b…
[2] A prosecutor's comment during voir dire that the state's burden of proof is not to prove guilt to "100 percent certainty" may constitute error.
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“This court has concluded that such a remark by the court, in the course of instructing a jury, is error.”
Establishes that while the trial court's own minimization of reasonable doubt standards is error, this rule applies to court instructions, not prosecutor statements during voir dire.
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, the prosecutor commented that the state's burden of proof regarding reasonable doubt was not '100 percent certainty.' After the defe…
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 Voir Dire Examination cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, Judge.
The judgment and sentence are affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant’s motion to strike the jury venire.
During voir dire, the prosecutor, in the course of asking prospective jurors about their understanding of the state’s burden, commented as to reasonable doubt that the burden was not to prove guilt to “100 percent certainty.” Following an objection, the court advised the jury that what the lawyers say is not the law and that the court would instruct the jury as to the law at the conclusion of the case.
Appellant contends that allowing jurors to hear the prosecutor’s comment, notwithstanding the court’s curative instruction, tainted the jury panel, as jurors might interpret the comment as a statement of law that they need not feel certain of their verdict. This court has concluded that such a remark by the court, in the course of instructing a jury, is error. E.g., Jones v. State, 656 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 663 So. 2d 632 (Fla.1995); McInnis v. State, 671 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
That issue has subsequently been certified to the supreme court. Wilson v. State, 668 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), rev. granted, 672 So. 2d 543 (Fla.1996).
See also Cage v. Louisiana, 498 U.S. 39, 111 S.Ct. 328, 112 L.Ed.2d 339 (1990).
Cf. Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1, 114 S.Ct. 1239, 127 L.Ed.2d 583 (1994).
We reject the argument that because we have recognized error in a trial court’s minimizing the reasonable doubt standard in the course of assisting the jury to understand the court’s instructions, any (presumably inadvertent) similar assertion by an assistant state attorney in the course of questioning a panel must be similarly sanitized. A trial court’s discretion in permitting voir dire examination will not be overruled on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion. Vining v. State, 637 So. 2d 921, 926 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 589, 130 L.Ed.2d 502 (1994); Kalinosky v. State, 414 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 421 So. 2d 67 (Fla.1982).
In any event, any harm created by the state’s questioning was cured by the court’s curative instruction coupled with the fact that the court subsequently correctly charged the jury. See Wyatt v. State, 641 So. 2d 1336, 1338 (Fla.1994), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1983, 131 L.Ed.2d 870 (1995); Haliburton v. State, 561 So. 2d 248, 251 (Fla.1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1259, 111 S.Ct. 2910, 115 L.Ed.2d 1073 (1991).
See also Victor; People v. Medina, 11 Cal.4th 694, 744-45, 12 Cal.4th 651B, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 165, 193, 906 P. 2d 2, 30-31 (1995) (finding no prejudice to defendant in prosecutor’s implication that state’s burden was less than 100 percent certainty because trial court’s proper instruction would have diluted any confusion created by prosecutor).
POLEN and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Morrison v. State, 818 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 2002)…t, as well as re-read the reasonable doubt instruction while swearing in the jury, it stands to reason that the curative actions taken in the instant case were at least as effective as those taken by the trial judge in Wilson. See Williams v. State, 674 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (holding any harm created by prosecutor’s [*445] statement that State’s burden was not to prove guilt to “100 percent certainty” was cured by the court’s curative instruction coupled with the fact that the court subsequently corr…
-
Rivera v. State, 718 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…irm the trial court’s overruling of the objections to the questions as being within the trial court’s discretion. See Vining v. State, 637 So. 2d 921, 926 (Fla.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1022, 115 S.Ct. 589, 130 L.Ed.2d 502 (1994); Williams v. State, 674 So. 2d 155, 156 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). In addition, the appellant failed to preserve by contemporaneous objection the impropriety of the comments during the prosecutor’s opening and closing argument. See Chandler v. State, 702 So. 2d 186, 191 (Fla.1997)(citing A…
-
Brooks v. State, 175 So. 3d 204 (Fla. 2015)…ell as re-read the reasonable doubt instruction while [*239] swearing in the jury, it stands to reason that the curative actions taken in the instant case were at least as effective as those taken by the trial judge in Wilson. See Williams v. State, 674 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (holding any harm created by prosecutor’s statement that State’s burden was not to prove guilt to “100 percent certainty” was cured by the court’s curative instruction coupled with the fact that the court subsequently correctly c…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Cage v. Louisiana, 498 U.S. 39 (U.S. 1990)
- Haliburton v. State, 561 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 1990)
- Vining v. State, 637 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 1994)
- Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1994)
- Jones v. State, 656 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Wyatt v. State, 641 So. 2d 1336 (Fla. 1994)
- Nunez v. Costello, 501 U.S. 1259 (U.S. 1991)
- Syder v. United States, 501 U.S. 1259 (U.S. 1991)
- Milo Wilson v. State, 668 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Vernon P. Turner, M.D. v. Donald Arthur Bolt, M.D., 671 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)