ANDRE HENDERSON, 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.
Andre Henderson was convicted of armed robbery with a firearm and causing bodily injury in a robbery. Although the court affirmed his convictions and sentences, it addressed the procedural issue of whether jurors should be permitted to question witnesses in criminal cases and urged the Florida Supreme Court to adopt a formal procedural rule governing this practice.
The court affirmed Henderson's convictions and sentences, finding that the issues raised did not warrant reversal. However, the court addressed the broader procedural issue and urged the Florida Supreme Court to adopt a procedural rule governing juror questioning of witnesses in criminal cases to prevent endless potential for error.
[1] Trial judges have discretion to permit jurors to propound questions to witnesses in criminal cases.
[2] A controlled procedure must be established to govern juror questioning of witnesses in criminal cases.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Upon appropriate occasions a trier of fact might be justified in propounding a question.... We conclude that the procedure should be one to be controlled by the discretion of the trial judge.”
Establishes that Florida courts recognize the discretion of trial judges to permit juror questioning of witnesses, but only under controlled procedures.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAndre Henderson was convicted of armed robbery with a firearm and causing bodily injury in the commission of a robbery. During trial, jurors posed que…
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 Discretion Of Trial Court cases and more on FLexlaw
MINER, J.
Although we find that the issues raised by the appellant in this appeal do not warrant reversal of his convictions and sentences for armed robbery with a firearm and causing bodily injury in the commission of a robbery, we feel obliged to address the matter of permitting jurors to question witnesses in criminal cases.1
For some years now, the Florida Supreme Court has countenanced the practice of trial judges in criminal cases permitting jurors to propound questions to witnesses in criminal cases. “[Ujpon appropriate occasions a trier of fact might be justified in propounding a question....
We conclude that the procedure should be one to be controlled by the discretion of the trial judge.” Ferrara v. State, 101 So. 2d 797, 801 (Fla.1958); see also Watson v. 0State, 651 So. 2d 1159 (Fla.1994), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 852, 116 S.Ct. 151, 133 L.Ed.2d 96 (1995). When this issue has arisen in Florida’s District Courts of Appeal, they have followed suit. See Patterson v. State, 725 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Bradford v. State, 722 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Pierre v. State, 601 So. 2d 1309 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Scheel v. State, 350 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).
We note that in each of the cases cited above, the court spoke of a controlled procedure in place in the trial court to deal with the matter when it arose. In the case at hand, there was no controlled procedure established for dealing with juror questions. In so observing, we imply no criticism of the able trial judge below who, like the attorneys involved, was obviously taken aback when the situation arose. Without presuming to suggest a standard, controlled procedure of general applicability to deal with juror questioning of witnesses, we would respectfully urge the Florida Supreme Court to adopt a procedural rule to address the matter, lest the “endless potential for error” of such a practice, as lamented by the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Pierre, should become a reality.
Appellant’s convictions and sentences are affirmed.
ERVIN and BROWNING, JJ., CONCUR. . In 1999, the Florida Legislature enacted a provision allowing jurors in a civil trial to submit written questions which are then considered outside the presence of the jury. See secs. 40.50(3) and (4), Fla. Stat. (1999). No similar provision was made for juror questioning in criminal cases.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Coates v. State, 855 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…51 So. 2d 1159 (Fla.1994), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 852, 116 S.Ct. 151, 133 L.Ed.2d 96 (1995). While there have been some misgivings expressed, the district courts of appeal have likewise sanctioned controlled jury questioning. See Henderson v. State, 792 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Patterson v. State, 725 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Tanner v. State, 724 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Bradford v. State, 722 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Pierre v. State, 601 So. 2d 1309 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Scheel v.…
Authorities Cited
- Watson v. State, 651 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 1994)
- Ferrara v. State, 101 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 1958)
- Bradford v. State, 722 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Scheel v. State, 350 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Ernst Pierre v. State, 601 So. 2d 1309 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- McBRIDE v. Cnty. OF Volusia, 725 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- Gilbert v. United States, 516 U.S. 852 (U.S. 1995)
- Watkins v. California, 516 U.S. 852 (U.S. 1995)