STEPHANIE LEE KING, 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.
Stephanie Lee King was convicted of first-degree felony murder and aggravated child abuse. She appealed the trial court's limitation on voir dire questioning regarding prospective jurors' ability to view graphic autopsy photographs fairly. The court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in restricting repetitive questioning where the State had already conducted extensive examination on the same topic.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in restricting defense counsel's additional voir dire questioning on the autopsy photographs. Trial courts have broad discretion to regulate voir dire and may limit repetitive questioning, particularly where one party has already conducted extensive examination on the same subject.
[1] A trial court has broad discretion in regulating the conduct of voir dire examinations of prospective jurors.
[2] The extent and scope of voir dire interrogation on specific subjects are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 extent to which parties may be permitted to go in examining prospective jurors on voir dire is subject to the sound discretion of the trial judge, the exercise of which will not be interfered with unless it is clearly abused.”
Establishes the legal standard that trial court discretion on voir dire scope will not be disturbed absent clear abuse.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKing was convicted of first-degree felony murder and aggravated child abuse. During jury selection, the State extensively questioned prospective juror…
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 Voir Dire Examination cases and more on FLexlaw
Stephanie Lee Kang was convicted of first degree felony murder and aggravated child abuse. King contends that the trial court unreasonably limited her voir dire of prospective jurors. Specifically, King argues that the trial court abused its discretion by preventing defense counsel from questioning prospective jurors on the effect, if any, that viewing graphic autopsy photographs might have on their ability to be fair.1 We affirm. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.300(b) authorizes reasonable voir dire examination of prospective jurors to assist in securing a fair and impartial jury. See Davis v. State, 461 So. 2d 67, 69-70 (Fla.1984); King v. State, 390 So. 2d 315, 319 (Fla.1980); Williams v. State, 424 So. 2d 148, 149 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).
To this end, the trial court has broad discretion in regulating the conduct of the voir dire examination of prospective jurors. Vining v. State, 637 So. 2d 921 (Fla.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1022, 115 S.Ct. 589, 130 L.Ed.2d 502 (1994).
See Watson v. State, 693 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Miller v. State, 683 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Baker v. State, 517 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Barker v. Randolph, 239 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970).
We review the trial court’s rulings regarding the scope of voir dire interrogation on specific subjects under an abuse of discretion standard. Davis v. State, 698 So. 2d 1182, 1190 (Fla. 1997); Farina v. State, 679 So. 2d 1151, 1154 (Fla.1996).
We conclude that King failed to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion in regulating the extent and scope of the examination of prospective jurors. Vining, 637 So. 2d at 926. “The extent to which parties may be permitted to go in examining prospective jurors on voir dire is subject to the sound discretion of the trial judge, the exercise of which will not be interfered with unless it is clearly abused.” Essix v. State, 347 So. 2d 664, 665 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).
The trial court controls the scope of the voir dire examination. Peri v. State, 426 So. 2d 1021, 1025 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). In controlling the scope of voir dire, the trial court decides the materiality and propriety of the voir dire questions. Id. Further, the trial court has discretion to curtail voir dire of prospective jurors. Williams, 424 So. 2d at 149. Although counsel must be permitted to ask prospective jurors about their latent or concealed prejudgments, the trial court has discretion to limit repetitive, improper, and argumentative voir dire questions. See, e.g., Stano v. State, 473 So. 2d 1282, 1285 (Fla.1985); Miller, 683 So. 2d at 602; Jones v. State, 378 So. 2d 797, 797-98 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).
In the instant case, the trial court permitted both sides to conduct extensive voir dire examinations of the prospective jurors. The voir dire record spans over 500 pages of transcript. The State’s examination consumed nearly 150 pages of the record while defense counsel’s examination consumed in excess of 200 pages of the record. The State questioned the prospective jurors extensively about the effect, if any, that viewing graphic autopsy photographs might have on their ability to be fair and impartial. Those who expressed even the slightest inability to be fair were questioned further and were later excused.
In light of the extensive questioning of the prospective jurors by the State, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s restriction of defense counsel’s additional voir dire examination on the issue of the autopsy photographs. See Coney v. State, 348 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) (finding that the trial court did not commit error in restricting repetitious questions to the prospective jurors upon voir dire examination). “Rulings of the court restricting the examination of jurors on voir dire will not be invalidated by a claim of prejudice grounded solely upon speculation or conjecture.” Mizell v. New Kingsley Beach, Inc., 122 So. 2d 225, 227 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960).
AFFIRMED.
SHARP, W., and PETERSON, JJ., concur. . King does not challenge the introduction of the autopsy photographs, only the restriction on her counsel’s voir dire examination regarding the photographs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hoskins v. State, 965 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2007)…he trial court did not abuse its discretion or restrict counsel’s ability to determine the fairness of jurors where it refused to permit defense counsel to question potential jurors in a manner that referred to the facts of the case); King v. State, 790 So. 2d 1253, 1255 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in preventing defense counsel from questioning prospective jurors on the effect of viewing graphic autopsy photographs where the State already had questioned prospe…
-
Bartee v. State, 849 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…enied. The above questioning is insufficient to raise an issue regarding Juror Welch. The relevant question is whether “the viewing of graphic autopsy photographs would have an adverse effect on the ability to be fair and impartial.” King v. State, 790 So. 2d 1253, 1255 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Many prospective jurors would undoubtedly prefer to avoid viewing autopsy photos or, for that matter, serving on the jury. Here the question and answer do not sufficiently raise an issue which would warrant a challenge for…
-
King v. State, 985 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…th offenses. She was sentenced to life imprisonment for the felony murder offense and to time served for the aggravated child abuse offense. Defendant directly appealed her convictions.1 This Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions in King v. State, 790 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Defendant then filed a motion for post conviction relief, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. [*581] During the trial, the trial court instructed the jury that “[t]he underlying felony for first-degree felony m…1 / 2
Authorities Cited (18 total)
- Davis v. State, 461 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 1984)
- Davis v. State, 698 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 1997)
- Amos Lee King v. State, 390 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 1980)
- Stano v. State, 473 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 1985)
- Vining v. State, 637 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 1994)
- Farina v. State, 679 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 1996)
- Williams v. State, 424 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Peri v. State, 426 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Mizell v. NEW Kingsley Beach, Inc., 122 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)
- Davis v. State, 239 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)