KELTON FORBES, 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.
Forbes appeals the denial of his motion for new trial based on alleged juror nondisclosure during voir dire. The court reverses and remands because the trial court prematurely applied the legal test without first conducting an interview with the juror to determine whether material information was concealed.
The trial court erred by prematurely applying the three-part De La Rosa test without first permitting a juror interview. When a moving party makes sworn factual allegations that, if true, would require ordering a new trial, the court must conduct a jury inquiry before determining the motion.
[1] A trial court must permit a juror interview before ruling on a motion for a new trial based on alleged juror nondisclosure during voir dire, when sworn factual allegation…
[2] Allegations that a juror knew a party and had attended a neighborhood meeting where crimes attributed to that party were discussed are material facts that, if proven, may…
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“a jury inquiry is permissible only when 'the moving party has made sworn factual allegations that, if true, would require a trial court to order a new trial[.]'”
Establishes the Baptist Hospital standard for when post-trial juror questioning is warranted
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAffidavits supporting Forbes' motion alleged that a juror lived in the same neighborhood as Forbes' relatives, that the juror's son had been Forbes' c…
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 Nondisclosure cases and more on FLexlaw
[*710] ERVIN, J.
This is an appeal from an order denying appellant Kelton Forbes’ motion for new trial. We conclude that the first issue, alleging that the lower court erred in denying the motion without affording him the opportunity to interview a juror to determine whether the juror failed to disclose knowledge of Forbes during voir dire, requires reversal and remand of the case for an evidentiary hearing. We thus do not reach appellant’s second issue pertaining to his sentence.
The affidavits Forbes presented in support of his motion disclose that neighbors averred that the juror lived in the same neighborhood as appellant’s grandmother, aunt and uncle, that the juror’s son had been a good friend of Forbes when they were boys, that the juror knew Forbes, and that the juror was aware of some of the things of which Forbes had been accused, because he had attended a neighborhood meeting at which several break-ins involving Forbes were discussed. Appellant represented in his memorandum of law that he had not remembered the juror during trial.
In denying the motion, the court recited the three-part test required by De La Rosa v. Zequeira, 659 So. 2d 239, 241 (Fla.1995), for granting a new trial based upon a juror’s nondisclosure of information during voir dire. The movant must show that (1) the information the juror withheld is relevant and material to jury selection; (2) the juror concealed such information; and (3) the failure to disclose the information was not attributable to the movant’s lack of diligence. The court decided that Forbes failed to satisfy the second and third parts of the test.
We agree with appellant that, based on the information supplied to the court, the court erred in applying the De La Rosa test prematurely, and should have permitted a juror interview before determining the motion for new trial. See, e.g., Young v. State, 720 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (De La Rosa standard applied after juror interview).
In Baptist Hospital of Miami, Inc. v. Maler, 579 So. 2d 97 (Fla.1991), the supreme court stated the test that should be used to determine when post-trial questioning of a juror is warranted. The court concluded that a jury inquiry is permissible only when “the moving party has made sworn factual allegations that, if true, would require a trial court to order a new trial[.]” Id. at 100 (emphasis added). See generally Wilding v. State, 674 So. 2d 114 (Fla.1996), and Jenkins v. State, 732 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (confirming applicability of Maler standard in criminal cases).
This court has stated that a juror’s “knowledge concerning one of the parties is considered to be a material fact,” and that concealment of a material fact relevant to issues in a case is a ground for legally challenging a verdict. Singletary v. Lewis, 584 So. 2d 634, 636 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). If true, the allegations of Forbes’ affiants that the juror knew Forbes and had attended a neighborhood meeting wherein crimes were discussed and attributed to him would warrant a new trial, unless the state is able to demonstrate that there was no reasonable possibility that the misconduct affected the verdict. Wilding, 674 So. 2d at 118.
Moreover, if it is shown that Forbes knew the juror but withheld that knowledge, such fact would constitute a waiver of any issue of juror misconduct. See, e.g., Rooney v. Hannon, 732 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 744 So. 2d 456 (Fla.1999).
REVERSED and REMANDED for an evidentiary hearing to determine possible juror misconduct.
BOOTH and BENTON, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ramirez v. State, 922 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…s ... to believe that the verdict may be subject to challenge,” Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.575 — in that the jury allegedly began deliberations prematurely — it should have allowed juror interviews. See Williams, 793 So. 2d at 1106; see also Forbes v. State, 753 So. 2d 709, 710 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (holding that the trial court should have permitted juror interviews before determining a motion for new trial); Roland v. State, 584 So. 2d 68, 69-70 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (holding that the trial court abused its discretion i…1 / 2
-
Jethro Davis v. State, 778 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…his case for an evidentiary hearing with juror interview(s) to determine if the test set forth in Zeqmira is satisfied. We find that the trial court was premature in its determination without conducting a juror interview. See, e.g., Forbes v. State, 753 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). If the conditions of the test are met, the trial court must grant the appellant a new trial. REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. STEVENSON, GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.…
-
Tromondo Tobias Bolling v. State, 61 So. 3d 419 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…ered to be a material fact,’ “ and, specifically, that “UJf true, the allegations ... that the juror knew Forbes and had attended a neighborhood meeting wherein crimes were discussed and attributed to him would warrant a new trial.” Forbes v. State, 753 So. 2d 709, 710 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (quoting Singletary v. Lewis, 584 So. 2d 634, 636 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)). In remanding for a juror interview, the Fourth District stated that a juror’s nondisclosure of the fact that he knew the defendant’s brother “is reasona…
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
- DE LA Rosa v. Zequeira, 659 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 1995)
- Baptist Hosp. OF Miami, Inc. v. Maler, 579 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1991)
- Wilding v. State, 674 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 1996)
- Ellis Singletary v. Mary Kendra Lewis, M.D., 584 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Sie Jenkins v. State, 732 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Young v. State, 720 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. COX, 732 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Rooney v. Lawrence E. Hannon, M.D., P.A., 732 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)