DAVID ARIAS, 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.
David Arias appealed his conviction, raising two contentions: a primary argument that was rejected in a parallel case (Doctor v. State), and a secondary challenge to the trial judge's comments during voir dire. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding both arguments without merit.
The court affirmed the conviction. The judge's voir dire comments were found to be innocuous, unobjectionable, and were not objected to at trial. Arias's primary contention was rejected on the authority of Doctor v. State, 677 So.2d 1372 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996).
[1] A prior appellate decision rejecting a contention is binding precedent on subsequent appeals.
[2] Comments made by a trial judge to a jury panel during voir dire are unobjectionable if they are innocuous and not objected to below.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“The appellant's primary contention is the one we rejected in Doctor v. State, 677 So.2d 1372 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). We do so again on the authority of that decision.”
Court's summary rejection of the appellant's main argument by reliance on precedent
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceArias was tried for a criminal offense. During jury voir dire, the trial judge made various statements to the jury panel explaining the importance of …
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 Bias cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
The appellant’s primary contention is the one we rejected in Doctor v. State, 677 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). We do so again on the authority of that decision. Contra Jones v. State, 656 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), review denied, 663 So. 2d 632 (Fla.1995), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 116 S.Ct. 1451, 134 L.Ed.2d 570 (1996), and cases cited in Doctor, 677 So. 2d at 1373 n. 1. His other point concerns comments by the trial judge to the jury panel as to the manner in which they should respond to questions on voir dire.1 The statements were at once innocuous, unobjectionable and unobjected to below.
Affirmed.
. For example:
This is not a test. There are no right or wrong answers. There are only honest answers to honest questions.
And the lawyers and myself are not prying into your personal affairs because we have nothing better to do.
We need to find out this information so they can make an intelligent choice as to who the jurors will be.
We've heard all the reasons and all the excuses both real and phony as to why people don't want to serve on juries. They come up with some pretty good ones and some ridiculous ones. Some you can see right through them.
I'm assuming by the fact that you didn't stay at work today and you came down to the building and honored your summons that you're willing to participate in the jury system so that we can try to resolve these cases so that we can attempt to make the system work.
It doesn't even begin to work if people shake their duty, their civic obligation and sit on juries.
Doesn’t work if people give us less than honest answers to questions so that they’ll get off of jury service.
We've heard all of those things including people that say I don't speak English and lived here for thirty five and forty years, it’s just so obvious.
We need to have all of you take this as seriously as we do because resolving criminal cases, picking juries and actually trying criminal cases is a very serious business for everybody involved.
We’re all people, we’re all human beings, we come into the courtroom and we’re all prejudiced about something, biased about something, feel sympathetic towards certain types of people. We all have that. And people who tell us that they don't have are not being truthful with us.
Number ten, have you or someone close to you ever been the victim of a crime. For our purpose someone close to you is a relative or someone so close to you that you treat them as if they’re a relative.
Doesn't mean the neighbor down the street or the person who shares a space with you in the office complex you are in unless they have that kind of special relationship.
Obviously if you were the victim of a violent crime such as this, it may make a difference on how you decide this case.
If somebody stole a lawnmower off your lawn and you told us I could never give this defendant a fair trial because somebody stole my lawnmower. We know you're angling to get off of jury service because they don't equate. I’m not calling you a liar, I’m just saying it doesn't equate.
If you’re the victim of a violent assault, it may make a difference in how you look at the defendant and how you decide this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Garvin v. State, 685 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…instructing the prospective jury that it would be able to convict Garvin on a “mere mathematical probability of guilt.” We note, however, that the trial court’s comments were “innocuous, unobjectionable and unobjected to below,” see Arias v. State, 681 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), and thus could not be the basis for a reversal. We have reviewed Garvin’s final contentions — as to his sentencing — and find them to be without merit. The convictions and sentences are affirmed. . The test is found at Faison,…
-
Hazel v. State, 685 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…PER CURIAM. . Affirmed. Arias v. State, 681 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996).…
Authorities Cited
- Jones v. State, 656 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Donnie Hugh Doctor v. State, 677 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)