ANTHONY GLEN CHATTIN, 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.
Anthony Chattin appealed his robbery conviction, challenging the jury selection process on two grounds: the trial court's failure to strike jurors who indicated they could not apply the voluntary intoxication defense, and the prosecution's allegedly race-based peremptory challenge of an African American prospective juror. The appellate court found both issues lacked merit on appeal due to procedural preservation failures, and affirmed the conviction.
While the trial court's failure to strike the two jurors and the prosecution's questionable race-neutral explanation for the peremptory strike arguably had merit, neither issue was properly preserved for appellate review. The conviction is affirmed because the defendant failed to follow required preservation steps and because the defense attorney waived the race-based challenge by failing to renew his objection before the jury was sworn.
[1] A prospective juror who exhibits a clear unwillingness to follow the law on a specific defense should be struck for cause.
[2] A defendant challenging the failure to dismiss jurors for cause must demonstrate that all peremptory challenges were used, additional peremptories were requested but deni…
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“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 standard for striking jurors for cause when they cannot follow a particular jury instruction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring jury selection in a robbery case, prospective jurors were questioned about their willingness to accept and apply the voluntary intoxication def…
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 Peremptory Strike cases and more on FLexlaw
CASANUEVA, Judge.
Anthony Chattin has raised several challenges to his conviction and sentence for robbery, none of which have merit. We write only to comment on two alleged errors in the jury selection process and to warn of the necessity to follow all of the steps to preserve such errors.
First, Mr. Chattin’s trial attorney was permitted to question the prospective jurors concerning their willingness to accept and apply the defense of voluntary intoxication. A number of jurors stated they could not follow an instruction on that defense if it were given, and Mr. Chattin’s attorney moved to strike five jurors for cause. The trial judge, inexplicably, struck three of those requested as well as a fourth who had not been named, but he neglected to strike two of the jurors Mr. 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 the law, he should be excused.”).
Mr. Chattin’s second jury challenge was to the State’s peremptory strike of an African American woman. When asked to justify this allegedly racially discriminatory strike, the assistant state attorney claimed that the prospective juror was nonresponsive during voir dire and seemed to lack interest in the proceedings. The trial court accepted this reason as genuine, and Mr. Chattin’s attorney made no further objection.
Both of these jury issues arguably have merit, but unfortunately neither was preserved for appellate review. A defendant who challenges the trial court’s failure to dismiss jurors for cause must demonstrate that all peremptory challenges were used, that additional peremptories were requested but denied, and that an objectionable juror was seated. See Jones v. State, 660 So. 2d 291, 293 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (citing Trotter v. State, 576 So. 2d 691 (Fla.1990)). Mr. Chattin’s attorney failed to follow these steps and thus foreclosed the possibility of demonstrating reversible error on appeal.
As for the State’s strike of a prospective juror, which the defense claimed was racially motivated, we have examined the record and have serious concerns about the manner in which the State articulated its allegedly race-neutral explanation for the strike. Nevertheless, any issue was waived when the defense attorney failed to renew his objection before the jury was sworn. Rather than doing so or accepting the jury subject to his earlier objection, Mr. Chattin’s attorney acquiesced in the seating of the panel. Accordingly, we must affirm on that issue. See Joiner v. State, 618 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 1993).
Affirmed without prejudice to the defendant to raise any appropriate issues on a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
PATTERSON, C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Chattin v. State, 800 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…ining two grounds. Chattin was convicted of robbery. His defense at trial was that he was too intoxicated to form the necessary specific intent to commit the crime. Chattin’s conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal. [*666] Chattin v. State, 779 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). One of Chattin’s issues on direct appeal was the failure of the trial court to strike two of the prospective jurors for cause.' Although we determined that “those jurors exhibited a clear unwillingness to follow the law on volunt…
-
Aragon v. State, 853 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…9, 119 S.Ct. 101, 142 L.Ed.2d 81 (1998); see also Kearse v. State, 662 So. 2d 677 (Fla.1995); Hill v. State, 477 So. 2d 553 (Fla.1985); Jenkins v. State, 824 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), review denied, 842 So. 2d 844 (Fla.2003); Chattin v. State, 779 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). . Rimmer v. State, 825 So. 2d 304 (Fla.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1034, 123 S.Ct. 567, 154 L.Ed.2d 453 (2002); Rodas v. State, 821 So. 2d 1150, 1153-54 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) ("The error must then be 'called to the trial court’s [*5…
-
State v. Chattin, 877 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…eoffender. On direct appeal of his conviction and sentence, Chattin argued that the trial court erred in failing to strike the two jurors for cause and in overruling his equal protection challenge to the State’s peremptory strike. Chattin v. State, 779 So. 2d 415, 415-16 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). This court found these two jury selection issues arguably had merit but affirmed because neither issue had been preserved for appellate review. Id. at 416. Chattin filed a rule 3.850 motion alleging his trial counsel was…
Authorities Cited
- Joiner v. State, 618 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 1993)
- 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)
- Ferguson v. State, 693 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)