RICHARD K. FERGUSON, 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.
Richard Ferguson appeals his convictions for aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer, fleeing and eluding, and driving with a suspended license. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding reversible error in the trial court's denial of Ferguson's requests to excuse prospective jurors for cause during voir dire.
The trial court committed reversible error by failing to excuse three prospective jurors who expressed reasonable doubt about their ability to be fair and impartial regarding the voluntary intoxication defense. Ferguson properly preserved the issue for appeal by exhausting his peremptory challenges in attempting to strike biased jurors. The case is reversed and remanded for a new trial.
[1] A trial court commits reversible error by denying a defendant's request to excuse a prospective juror for cause when the juror expresses doubt about their ability to be f…
[2] A prospective juror's statement that a defense is "ridiculous" or that it is "wrong" raises a reasonable doubt about their ability to follow the law and be impartial.
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“If there is any reasonable doubt that a prospective juror cannot render a verdict based solely on the evidence submitted and the trial court's instruction of the law, he should be excused.”
Establishes the legal standard for excusing prospective jurors for cause 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 intelligenceFerguson was arrested after a high-speed chase involving drinking and driving, which resulted in him being shot by a police officer. During jury selec…
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 Impartiality cases and more on FLexlaw
PATTERSON, Acting Chief Judge.
Richard Ferguson appeals from convictions of aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer, fleeing and eluding, and driving while license suspended or revoked. We agree with Ferguson that reversible error occurred during the selection of the jury. Because this issue requires reversal and remand for a new trial, we decline to reach the remaining points raised.
The trial court denied Ferguson’s requests to excuse five prospective jurors for cause. He then used peremptory challenges to strike those jurors. After exhausting all of his peremptory challenges, he requested additional peremptories to strike jurors sixteen and seventeen. The court denied his request, and those jurors served on the jury. Thus, contrary to the state’s argument, Ferguson has preserved this issue for appeal. See Trotter v. State, 576 So. 2d 691 (Fla.1990); Jones v. State, 660 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).
Ferguson’s charges came about after he had been drinking and was involved in a high-speed chase which ultimately resulted in his being shot by a police officer. Having little else to cling to, defense counsel explored the defense of voluntary intoxication during voir dire. Responses by three jurors raised a reasonable doubt about whether they could be fair and impartial, and they should have been excused for cause. When asked whether he would follow the law on voluntary intoxication, juror two responded, “I guess. That sounds ridiculous.” Juror six indicated he would have a problem with a voluntary intoxication defense “[bjecause it’s wrong. You are responsible for your actions.” Juror three explained that he had lost two friends because of alcohol and driving and he didn’t “believe you should drive with any kind of alcohol in your system.” When asked if that might prejudice him, he responded, “Possibly.” Our review of the transcript reveals that none of these jurors were rehabilitated after making the above comments. “If there is any reasonable doubt that a prospective juror cannot render a verdict based solely on the evidence submitted and the trial court’s instruction of the law, he should be excused.” King v. State, 622 So. 2d 134, 135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). That is clearly the case in regard to these three jurors. Therefore, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
ALTENBERND and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Adkins v. State, 736 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…re more credible. Adkins’s theory was that he acted in self defense when the officer attacked him first. See Casey v. State, 651 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Stedke’s comments implied that he could not accept such a defense. In Ferguson v. State, 693 So. 2d 596, 597 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), we explained that when veni-repersons indicate an aversion to a potential defense, reasonable doubt could exist about their ability to render a verdict based on the evidence and the law. Such reasonable doubt existed here, a…
-
Chattin v. State, 779 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…cted to strike two of the jurors Mr. [*416] Chattin’s attorney identified. The record reveals that those jurors exhibited a clear unwillingness to follow the law on voluntary intoxication and should have been struck for cause. See Ferguson v. State, 693 So. 2d 596, 597 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (quoting King v. State, 622 So. 2d 134, 135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)) (“If there is any reasonable doubt that a prospective juror cannot render a verdict based solely on the evidence submitted and the trial court’s instruction of t…
-
Wells v. State, 766 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…and voluntary intoxication aside. See e.g., Ferrell v. State, 697 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (finding trial court erred by not excusing juror for cause who expressed reluctance to consider voluntary intoxication as a defense); Ferguson v. State, 693 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (finding jurors should have been excused for cause because their responses during voir dire raised reasonable doubt about their ability to impartially consider [*1131] accused’s voluntary intoxication defense). The State argues th…
Previewing 3 of 4 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)
- King v. State, 622 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Leroni Jones v. State, 660 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)