STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
WILLIAM DARDEN, 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 Florida Supreme Court reviewed a Fifth District Court of Appeal decision that reversed a burglary conviction because the defendant was not present at the bench during jury selection. The Supreme Court quashed the reversal, holding that while defendants have a right to be present at bench conferences during jury challenges, this right must be timely raised, and the defendant's failure to request presence at the bench—despite knowing of the right—constitutes a waiver.
The Supreme Court held that although a defendant has a right to be present at the bench during jury challenges, this right must be timely asserted. Because Darden was present in the courtroom, had notice of this right from the prior Coney decision, and neither he nor his counsel expressed any interest in being present at the bench, there was no error requiring reversal.
[1] A defendant has a right to be present at the bench during the exercise of pretrial juror challenges when such challenges occur after April 27, 1995, and before January 1,…
[2] A defendant must timely raise the issue of their absence from the bench during jury selection.
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“the defendant had a right to be present at the bench when pretrial juror challenges were exercised”
Establishes the foundational right recognized in Coney v. State
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliam Darden was charged with burglary of a dwelling, burglary of a conveyance, possession of burglary tools, and felony petit theft. During jury se…
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.
' SHAW, Justice.
We have for review Darden v. State, 705 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), based on conflict with Carmichael v. State, 715 So. 2d 247, 23 Fla. L. Weekly S377 (Fla.1998). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We quash Darden.
William Darden was charged with burglary of a dwelling, burglary of a conveyance, possession of burglary tools, and felony petit theft. Following voir dire, the jury was selected at a bench conference on May 13, 1996, where several juror challenges were exercised. Although Darden was present in the courtroom during jury selection, the record fails to show that he was present at the bench. He was convicted as charged and the district court reversed because he was not present at the bench during jury selection. The State argues that the trial court did not err in selecting the jury. We agree.
This Court in Coney v. State, 653 So. 2d 1009, 1013 (Fla.1995), ruled that under our then-current rules of procedure, the defendant had a right to be present at the bench when pretrial juror challenges were exercised.1 We recently held in Carmichael v. State, 715 So. 2d 247, 23 Fla. L. Weekly S377 (Fla.1998), that the defendant must timely raise this issue. In the present case, although Darden was present in the courtroom when the jury was selected, the record fails to show that either he or his lawyer expressed any interest in Darden being present at the bench. We note that our decision in Coney had been issued a year earlier, giving Darden ample notice of the existence of this right. We find no error. We quash Darden.
It is so ordered.
OVERTON, KOGAN and WELLS, JJ., concur. PARIENTE, J., concurs with an opinion.
HARDING, C.J., dissents -with an opinion, in which ANSTEAD, J., concurs.
. Coney has since been superseded. See Amendments to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 685 So. 2d 1253, 1254 n. 2 (Fla.1996) ("This amendment supersedes Coney v. State, 653 So. 2d 1009 (Fla.1995).”). Coney is applicable only to those cases falling within a narrow window — i.e., where jury selection took place after April 27, 1995 (the date Coney became final), and before January 1, 1997 (the date the corrective amendment to rule 3.180 became effective). See State v. Mejia, 696 So. 2d 339 (Fla.1997); Amendments.
PARIENTE, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the result only for the reasons stated in my concurrence in Carmichael v. State, 715 So. 2d 247, 23 Fla. L. Weekly S377 (Fla.1998). I add the caveat that an affir-mance does not preclude the defendant from raising this issue by way of posteonviction relief as suggested by Judge Altenbernd in his concurrence in Hill v. State, 696 So. 2d 798, 800 (Fla. 2d DCA), decision approved, 700 So. 2d 646 (Fla.1997).
HARDING, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent for reasons stated m my dissenting opinion in State v. Ellis, 23 Fla. L. Weekly S382, 718 So. 2d 749 (Fla.1998).
ANSTEAD, J., concurs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Coney v. State, 653 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 1995)
- Amendments TO THE Florida Rules OF Criminal Procedure, 685 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 1996)
- Carmichael v. State, 715 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 1998)
- State v. Mejia, 696 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 1997)
- Hill v. State, 696 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Hill v. State, 700 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 1997)
- State v. Ellis, 718 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 1998)
- Darden v. State, 705 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)