EURYIA MOBLEY, 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.
Euryia Mobley challenged his robbery conviction based on the trial court's refusal to strike a biased juror for cause and denial of an additional peremptory challenge. The appellate court found manifest error and reversed, remanding for a new trial.
The court held that manifest error occurred. The trial court erred in refusing to strike Mrs. Derrenbacker for cause given her clear expressions of inability to be impartial, and this error was compounded by denying Mobley an additional peremptory challenge after he exhausted his original challenges. The conviction is reversed and remanded for a new trial.
[1] A juror's competency is a mixed question of law and fact, reviewed for manifest error, and determined by whether the juror can render a verdict solely upon the evidence a…
[2] A trial court errs by denying a challenge for cause when a venire person expresses doubt about their ability to be fair and impartial due to potential conflicts of intere…
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“whether the juror can lay aside any bias or prejudice and render a verdict solely upon the evidence presented and the instructions on the law given by the court.”
Establishes the legal standard for determining juror competency that the trial court must apply
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring voir dire, venire person Mrs. Derrenbacker stated she could not assure the prosecutor with 100% certainty that she could be fair and impartial …
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 Manifest Error cases and more on FLexlaw
STRINGER, Judge.
Euryia Mobley challenges his conviction and sentence for robbery. He contends the trial court erred by refusing to strike a venire person for cause and further erred by denying his subsequent request for an additional peremptory challenge. We agree and remand for a new trial.
The competency of a juror presents a mixed question of law and fact, the resolution of which is within the trial court’s discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal without a showing of manifest error. See Smith v. State, 699 So. 2d 629, 636 (Fla.1997); Wells v. State, 766 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). The test for determining juror competency is “whether the juror can lay aside any bias or preju dice and render a verdict solely upon the evidence presented and the instructions on the law given by the court.” Wells, 766 So. 2d at 1130 (citing Bryant v. State, 656 So. 2d 426, 428 (Fla.1995)).
Mobley challenged Mrs. Derren-backer for cause because during voir dire she indicated that she “could not tell [the prosecutor] 100 percent,” as to whether she could be fair and impartial because she was related to a family of Patels who were hotel owners. A Mr. Jay Patel was manager of the Holiday Inn Express which was robbed in this case. Mrs. Derren-backer acknowledged that “there’s so many Patels,” and indicated that although she may not know this particular Patel, she was nevertheless concerned that “loyalties” to the Patel family and the community of Patels who are hotel owners might affect her ability to be fair and impartial. Mrs. Derrenbacker’s responses during voir dire clearly indicate that she would have had difficulty rendering an impartial verdict in this case. Mobley exercised a peremptory to excuse her after the court refused his challenge for cause. The court also denied Mobley’s subsequent request for an additional peremptory to remove venire person Durneck. Mr. Durneck ultimately served on the panel.
Mobley has demonstrated manifest error by showing that he exhausted all of his peremptory challenges, by requesting an additional peremptory challenge which was denied, and by identifying a specific juror whom he would have excused if possible, but who ultimately served on the panel. See Trotter v. State, 576 So. 2d 691, 693 (Fla.1990); Wells, 766 So. 2d at 1131. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and GREEN, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Busby v. State, 894 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 2004)…reversals, see, e.g., Bell v. State, 870 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Rodas v. State, 821 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Rodriguez v. State, 816 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Taylor v. State, 796 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Mobley v. State, 774 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Hall v. State, 682 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Davis v. State, 656 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Diaz v. State, 608 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Street v. State, 592 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Henry v. State, 586 So.…
Authorities Cited
- Trotter v. State, 576 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 1990)
- Dobson v. State, 699 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1997)
- Bryant v. State, 656 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1995)
- Wells v. State, 766 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)