JOHN LORENZO HALL, 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.
John Hall challenges his convictions for burglary of a dwelling and grand theft, arguing the trial court erred in denying his challenge for cause to prospective juror Sobkowicz, whose wife had been a victim of armed home invasion. The court finds reversible error and reverses because the trial judge misremembered the juror's statements and failed to properly evaluate his bias.
Yes. The trial court committed reversible error by denying the challenge for cause to juror Sobkowicz. The juror's statements raised reasonable doubts about his impartiality, and because the trial judge's denial was based on a factual misremembering rather than credibility assessment, reversal is required.
[1] A prospective juror's statement that an experience could cloud their judgment raises reasonable doubt as to their ability to render an impartial verdict and requires excu…
[2] A trial court's denial of a challenge for cause to a prospective juror may constitute reversible error if the judge's recollection of the juror's statements is demonstrab…
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 a prospective juror's statements raise reasonable doubts as to that juror's ability to render an impartial verdict, the juror should be excused.”
Establishes the standard for excusing jurors for cause based on bias
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, prospective juror Sobkowicz stated that his wife had been the victim of an armed home invasion and that it "could cloud my judgment.…
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.
The defendant challenges his convictions for burglary of a dwelling and grand theft. He contends that the trial court erred in denying his challenges for cause to prospective jurors Ellins and Sobkowicz. Because we find merit in his argument as to one of the jurors, we reverse.
During voir dire, prospective juror Sob-kowicz indicated that his wife had been the victim of an armed home invasion and when questioned he stated in part that “[i]t could cloud my judgment.” Neither the judge nor the prosecutor attempted to rehabilitate him. The trial judge denied defense counsel’s cause challenge, so counsel expended a peremptory. Thereafter, counsel attempted to challenge prospective juror Drier for cause on the basis that she had been the victim of a burglary. The defense, having exhausted its peremptories, asked for additional challenges and the trial court denied that request. Juror Drier was eventually seated on the panel.
To demonstrate reversible error, the defendant must show that he used all of his peremptory challenges, made a request for additional peremptories which was denied, and that an objectionable juror was seated. Trotter v. State, 576 So. 2d 691 (Fla.1990).
If a prospective juror’s statements raise reasonable doubts as to that juror’s ability to render an impartial verdict, the juror should be excused. Turner v. State, 645 So. 2d 444 (Fla.1994).
While a trial judge does have great discretion in ruling on challenges to jurors for cause, the denial of a challenge should be reversed where manifest error is shown.- Mills v. State, 462 So. 2d 1075 (Fla.1985), cert. denied 473 U.S. 911, 105 S.Ct. 3538, 87 L.Ed.2d 661 (1985).
In this case, the record reveals that the trial judge was simply mistaken in her recollection of juror Sobkowicz’ statements. She stated that “[H]e said he was going to give it his best try.” Our review of the transcript reveals no such statement nor any intimation to that effect.
Therefore, this is not a case where the trial judge’s ruling was based upon an evaluation of the demeanor or the credibility of the juror, which is in part the reason why such rulings are entitled to great deference. See Coggins v. State, 677 So. 2d 926, 928 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (Cope, J. concurring).
This case is factually very similar to Jones v. State, 660 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) and Coggins, supra. In both cases, the court found reversible error even though the jurors later made statements that tended to indicate that they would attempt to be fair and impartial. In this case, the juror’s statements certainly raised a reasonable doubt as to his ability to render an impartial verdict and he did not make any later statements that served to dispel this doubt. Under these circumstances, we are compelled to reverse and remand for a new trial.1 See also Williams v. State, 638 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 4th DCA), review granted, 648 So. 2d 724 (Fla.1994), review denied, 654 So. 2d 920 (Fla.1995); King v. State, 622 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Price v. State, 538 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989),
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
. We note that the state has conceded error as to the defendant's conviction for grand theft.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Busby v. State, 894 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 2004)…3 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Rodas v. State, 821 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Rodriguez v. State, 816 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Taylor v. State, 796 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Mobley v. State, 774 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Hall v. State, 682 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Davis v. State, 656 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Diaz v. State, 608 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Street v. State, 592 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Henry v. State, 586 So. 2d 1335 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).…
-
McKAY v. State, 61 So. 3d 1178 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…05 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Absent manifest error, a determination of whether a challenged juror is competent will not be disturbed. See Puiatti v. Dugger, 589 So. 2d 231 (Fla.1991); Miller v. State, 934 So. 2d 580, 581 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Hall v. State, 682 So. 2d 208, 209 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). There is manifest error when a juror responds with equivocal or conditional answers that thereby raise a reasonable doubt as to whether the juror possesses the requisite state of mind necessary to render an impartial decisio…
-
James v. State, 731 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…ust show that he used all of his peremptory challenges, made a request for additional perempto-ries, that the request was denied, and that an objectionable juror was seated on the jury. See Trotter v. State, 576 So. 2d 691 (Fla.1990); Hall v. State, 682 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). If a prospective juror’s statements raise a reasonable doubt regarding his ability to be impartial, the prospective juror should be excused. See Turner v. State, 645 So. 2d 444 (Fla.1994); Lusk v. State, 446 So. 2d 1088 (Fla.1984…
Previewing 3 of 5 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)
- Mills v. State, 462 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 1985)
- Price v. State, 538 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Turner v. State, 645 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 1994)
- Williams v. State, 638 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Green Bay Packaging, Inc. v. Adams Extract Co., 473 U.S. 911 (U.S. 1985)
- Holding v. Sovran Bank & Tr. of the Est. of Muse, 473 U.S. 911 (U.S. 1985)
- King v. State, 622 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Leroni Jones v. State, 660 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Coggins v. State, 677 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)