MARY ANTONIA PAGE, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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 decision in Coney v. State, which clarified a defendant's right to be present at juror challenges, is prospective only and does not apply to cases already tried.
[1] A judicial clarification of a defendant's right to be physically present at the immediate site where jury challenges are exercised is prospective only.
[2] A new rule of law, unless explicitly stated otherwise, does not apply to cases that have already been tried before the rule was announced.
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 intelligenceThe First District Court of Appeal certified a question regarding the applicability of Coney v. State to 'pipeline cases.' The Supreme Court had previ…
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 Right To Be Present At Jury Selection cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review a decision certifying the following question to be of great public importance:
DOES THE DECISION IN CONEY V. STATE, 653 So. 2d 1009 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 116 S.Ct. 315, 133 L.Ed.2d 218 (1995), APPLY TO “PIPELINE CASES,” THAT IS, THOSE OF SIMILARLY SITUATED DEFENDANTS WHOSE CASES WERE PENDING ON DIRECT REVIEW OR OTHERWISE NOT YET FINAL WHEN THE OPINION WAS RELEASED?
Page v. State, 677 So. 2d 55, 56 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).1 We have, jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We answered this question in Boyett v. State, No. 81,971, — So. 2d — [1996 WL 693616] (Fla. Dec. 5, 1996). We acknowledged there that we had incorrectly accepted the State’s concession that not allowing Coney to be present at the immediate site of juror challenges was error. In Boyett we wrote, “In Coney, we held for the first time that a defendant has a right under [Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure] 3.180 to be physically present at the immediate site where challenges are exercised.” Boyett, — So. 2d at —, slip op. at 5. We therefore receded from that part of Coney where we applied the new definition of “presence” to Coney himself. The result of Coney remained unchanged, however, since we had found the error harmless. We went on to address prospective application:
In Coney, we expressly held that “odr ruling today clarifying this issue is prospective only.” Unless we explicitly state otherwise, a rule of law which is to be given prospective application does not apply to those cases which have been tried, before the rule is announced. Because Boyett had already been tried when Coney issued, Coney does not apply.
Boyett, — So. 2d at-, slip op. at 5 (citations omitted).
Accordingly, we answer the certified question in the negative and approve the decision of the district court of appeal.
It is so ordered.
OVERTON, SHAW, GRIMES, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur. . The court also certified a second question, which was not briefed by either party. We therefore decline to address that question here.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Exposito v. State, 891 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 2004)…s of the disposition of the defendant's appeal.” See ch. 87-243, § 46, at 1658, Laws of Fla. The amendment to subsection (l)(d) was held unconstitutional. See Page v. State, 677 So. 2d 55, 56 (Fla. 1st DCA), approved on other grounds, Page v. State, 684 So. 2d 817 (Fla.1996). In 1992, this Court held that section 924.07 did not authorize an appeal from an order denying restitution. See State v. MacLeod, 600 So. 2d 1096 (Fla.1992). The next year, the Legislature added subsection (l)(lc), authorizing the State…
-
Lookadoo v. State, 737 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…providing that indirect criminal contempt may not be used to enforce compliance with injunc [*639] tions against domestic violence violates constitutional separation of powers); Page v. State, 677 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 1st DCA), approved on other grounds, 684 So. 2d 817 (Fla.1996) (statute which requires appellate courts to rule on a question of law raised by the state on cross-appeal regardless of the disposition of the defendant’s appeal violates separation of powers doctrine); Ong v. Mike Guido Properties, 668 S…
-
Gray v. State, 742 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…tatute providing that indirect criminal contempt may not be used to enforce compliance with injunctions against domestic violence violates constitutional separation of powers); Page v. State, 677 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 1st DCA), approved, on other grounds, 684 So. 2d 817 (Fla.1996) (statute which requires appellate courts to rule on a question of law raised by the state on cross-appeal regardless of the disposition of the defendant’s appeal violates separation of powers doctrine); Ong v. Mike Guido Properties, 668 S…
Authorities Cited
- Coney v. State, 653 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 1995)
- Page v. State, 677 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)