RICHARD DWAYNE EDWARDS, 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 Edwards was convicted of armed burglary under Florida's Prison Releasee Reoffender Act and challenged his conviction and sentence on appeal. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed his conviction, rejecting challenges to both the trial court's voir dire rulings and the constitutionality of the statute under which he was sentenced.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in restricting the voir dire questions, as trial judges have broad discretion in determining the scope of voir dire and the questions here were designed to pre-judge witness credibility rather than uncover juror bias. Additionally, the constitutional challenges to section 775.082(8) are rejected, as this court has previously rejected all such challenges to the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion by refusing to allow voir dire questions calculated to pre-judge the credibility of a witness.
[2] While counsel must be permitted to probe for hidden biases and prejudices during voir dire, a trial judge retains broad discretion in determining the scope of such examin…
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“We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's refusal to allow the questions posed here, which the court concluded were calculated to pre-judge the credibility of a witness.”
Establishes the court's holding that the trial court properly restricted voir dire questioning about witness credibility
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEdwards was charged with armed burglary and convicted under section 775.082(8), Florida Statutes, the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act. During voir dire…
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 Vagueness Challenge cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, J.
We affirm Edwards’ conviction and his sentence imposed for armed burglary pursuant to section 775.082(8), Florida Statutes (1997), known as the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act.
During voir dire, Edwards attempted to ask prospective jurors what they look for in evaluating a witness’s credibility. The state objected and Edwards argued that he was trying to determine whether the prospective jurors felt that an oath implied that the witness is going to tell the truth and further, that the purpose of exploring this area was to discern the tools the jurors would use in evaluating the credibility of a prospective witness who had agreed to testify in the case incident to a plea agreement with the state.
We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s refusal to allow the questions posed here, which the court concluded were calculated to pre-judge the credibility of a witness. See Gunn v. State, 641 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). We recognize that counsel must be permitted to “probe attitudes, beliefs and philosophies for ... hidden biases and prejudices.” Lowe v. State, 718 So. 2d 920, 923 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). However, a trial judge enjoys broad discretion in determining the scope of voir dire. See Vining v. State, 637 So. 2d 921 (Fla.1994). We have considered Campbell-Eley v. State, 718 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), upon which Edwards relies, and deem it distinguishable. In that case, the disallowed voir dire questions addressed possible juror bias and ability to render a fair and impartial verdict, ' not a pre-determination of witness credibility, as Edwards attempted here.
Edwards also challenges the constitutionality of section 775.082(8) 1 Florida Statutes, on grounds of substantive due process, cruel and unusual punishment, and vagueness. This court has previously rejected all such challenges. See Rollinson v. State, 743 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Jennings v. State, 744 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); accord Turner v. State, 745 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Woods v. State, 740 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), rev. granted, 740 So. 2d 529 (Fla.1999).
As to all other issues, we also affirm.
DELL and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur. . In 1998, the statute was re-numbered from subsection (8) to (9) by chapter 98-204, § 10 at p.1966 Laws of Florida.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wencel v. State, 768 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…denied, 727 So. 2d 915 (Fla.1999), and most recently in Rollinson v. State, 743 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). His arguments on substantive due process, and cruel and unusual punishment have also been rejected in prior cases. See Edwards v. State, 753 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Jennings v. State, 744 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Rollinson, 743 So. 2d at 588-89. The question of whether the act violates the single subject rule of Article III, Section 6 of the Florida Constitution has also been addres…
-
Kearse v. State, 756 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…PER CURIAM. We affirm appellant’s conviction and sentence as a prison releasee reoffender, finding that the statute is constitutional. See Edwards v. State, 753 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Simmons v. State, 755 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), rev. granted, no. SC96465, 751 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. Jan. 18, 2000); Jennings v. State, 744 So. 2d 1126, 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Rollinson v. State, 743 So. 2d 585, 587-90 (Fla…
-
Harris v. State, 762 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…ncluding the challenge to the constitutionality of the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act, which have previously been addressed and rejected. See State v. Cotton, 25 Fla. L. Weekly S463, — So. 2d -, 2000 WL 766521 (Fla. June 15, 2000); Edwards v. State, 753 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); and Young v. State, 719 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), review denied, 727 So. 2d 915 (Fla.1999). AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED FOR RE-SENTENCING. POLEN, J., and GARDINER, ANA I., Associate Judge, concur.…
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
- Woods v. State, 740 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Vining v. State, 637 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 1994)
- Mundy v. State, 745 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Rollinson v. State, 743 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Campbell-Eley v. State, 718 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Jennings v. State, 744 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Rosine Rutt v. Jungle Larry's Safari Land, Inc., 718 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- State v. Stein, 718 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Gunn v. State, 641 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)