IRVIN TRIPP, 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.
Defendant Tripp appeals the denial of his motion for a new trial based on alleged juror misconduct. The court holds that a juror's failure to disclose during voir dire that he knew the defendant's brother constitutes potential misconduct requiring a new trial if the defendant satisfies the three-part test from De La Rosa and Davis, and reverses to allow an evidentiary hearing including juror interview.
A juror's non-disclosure of relevant and material information during voir dire constitutes misconduct entitling a defendant to a new trial when the defendant establishes: (1) the information is relevant and material to jury service; (2) the juror concealed the information during questioning; and (3) the failure to disclose was not attributable to the defendant's lack of diligence. The trial court erred in denying the new trial motion without conducting a juror interview.
[1] A juror's breach of duty to disclose information relevant to jury service constitutes misconduct entitling a defendant to a new trial when prejudice is established.
[2] To warrant a new trial based on a juror's non-disclosure during voir dire, the complaining party must establish that the information was relevant and material, that the j…
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“Under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.600(b)(4), a juror's breach of duty to disclose information relating to service in a particular ease constitutes misconduct entitling the defendant to a new trial when prejudice is established.”
Establishes the legal standard for juror misconduct based on non-disclosure
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, a juror answered the judge's question that he did not know the defendant or any members of his family. After trial concluded, t…
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 Misconduct cases and more on FLexlaw
FARMER, C.J.
We address only the issue concerning the denial of a post-trial interview of a juror. During jury selection the juror in question effectually answered the Judge’s question that he did not know defendant or any members of his family. After the trial was over, defendant learned from his brother that the juror did in fact know him. Defendant’s motion sought a new trial under rule 3.600 on account of juror misconduct.
Under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.600(b)(4), a juror’s breach of duty to disclose information relating to service in a particular ease constitutes misconduct entitling the defendant to a new trial when prejudice is established. See, e.g., Marshall v. State, 664 So. 2d 302, 304 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). In deciding whether a juror’s non-disclosure during voir dire warrants a new trial, the court held:
“First, the complaining party must establish that the information is relevant and material to jury service in the case. Second, that the juror concealed the information during questioning. Lastly, that the failure to disclose the information was not attributable to the complaining party’s lack of diligence.” [c.o.]
De La Rosa v. Zequeira, 659 So. 2d 239, 241 (Fla.1995); accord Davis v. State, 778 So. 2d 1096, 1097 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Moreover, “a juror’s non-disclosure need not be intentional to constitute concealment.” Roberts v. Tejada, 814 So. 2d 334, 343 (Fla.2002).
Here, the trial judge asked all the jurors whether any of them knew defendant or his family. The question is not reasonably susceptible to mistake or misinterpretation. Non-disclosure of this kind of relevant and material information is reasonably capable of affecting a decision to exercise peremptory challenges even if the juror is not disqualified for cause. And as defendant notes, the juror’s failure to disclose his knowledge of defendant’s brother was reasonably material to the exercise of a peremptory or cause challenge against Johnson. In Tejada, the court found that counsel exercised “due diligence” in not questioning jurors further on a subject, but instead relying on truthful responses and full disclosure to proffered questions by the trial court on the material subjects at issue. 814 So. 2d at 343-44. The trial court’s denial of a new trial was error without conducting a juror interview. At this point, therefore, we reverse only the order denying the motion for a new trial and remand for an evidentiary hearing, including an interview of the juror. See Davis, 778 So. 2d at 1097. If defendant satisfies the requirements of De La Rosa and Davis, the trial court shall grant defendant a new trial. We leave that decision in the first instance to the trial court.
SHAHOOD and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pierson Villalobos v. State, 143 So. 3d 1042 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…ring or deliberating the case as opposed to “what Appellant’s counsel would have done during voir dire had the ... history been disclosed.” Fine v. Shands Teaching Hosp. and Clinics, Inc., 994 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). See also Tripp v. State, 874 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). Here, Arvidson acknowledged that he had a business relationship with Gyokeres. He performed carpentry/handyman work at Gyokeres’ home for which Gyokeres personally wrote him checks, and he performed such work as recently as two…1 / 2
-
Tromondo Tobias Bolling v. State, 61 So. 3d 419 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…e Fourth District stated that a juror’s nondisclosure of the fact that he knew the defendant’s brother “is reasonably capable of affecting a decision to exercise peremptory challenges even if the juror is not disqualified for cause.” Tripp v. State, 874 So. 2d 732, 733 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). But the cases do not say that all knowledge concerning a party or witness is relevant and material. Here we do not share the trial court’s view that Mr. Bolling established that the information Mr. Maxwell failed to disclo…
-
Casines v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 79 So. 3d 113 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…fendant of a fair and impartial trial.”); Pereda v. Parajon, 957 So. 2d 1194, 1197 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (stating appellate court reviews an order granting a motion for new trial based on juror nondisclosure for an abuse of discretion); Tripp v. State, 874 So. 2d 732, 734 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (holding denial of new trial based on juror’s failure to disclose relationship with the defendant and his family was error absent a jury interview). Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- DE LA Rosa v. Zequeira, 659 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 1995)
- Roberts v. Francisco Tejada, M.D., 814 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 2002)
- Marshall v. State, 664 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Jethro Davis v. State, 778 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)