CALVIN DORSETT, 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.
In a criminal trial, the court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial because the trial court erred in denying the defendant's cause challenge to a prospective juror who could not accept the presumption of innocence and believed the defendant had to prove his own innocence.
The trial court erred in denying the cause challenge because the juror's responses established her lack of impartiality. A juror is not impartial when she has difficulty accepting and employing the presumption of innocence, and seating such a juror constitutes structural error not subject to harmless error analysis.
[1] Seating a single juror whose impartiality may reasonably be questioned constitutes a structural error not subject to harmless error analysis.
[2] Jurors must begin a trial impartial, forming opinions solely from the evidence presented and the law provided by the judge.
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“A defendant may not be required to overcome misconceptions and preconceptions of jurors to avoid a guilty verdict.”
Establishes the principle that defendants have a right to an impartial jury unbiased by preconceptions
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 (voir dire) in the defendant's felony trial, defense counsel explained that the burden of proof rested solely on the State and 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 Structural Error cases and more on FLexlaw
FARMER, J.
In his criminal trial on felony charges, defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his cause challenges to potential jurors. We agree. While defendant cites the rejection of challenges to four prospective jurors on appeal as error, we need address only one of them. See, Jenkins v. State, 824 So. 2d 977, 980 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (seating a single juror whose impartiality may reasonably be questioned is a structural error not subject to harmless error analysis).
A defendant may not be required to overcome misconceptions and preconceptions of jurors to avoid a guilty verdict. See, Slater v. State, 910 So. 2d 347, 348 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (citing Hill v. State, 477 So. 2d 553, 556 (Fla.1985)). Jurors must start out as impartial, forming opinions only from the evidence produced during trial and from the law given by the judge; any doubt as to one’s impartiality should lead to excusal of that juror for cause. Lewis v. State, 931 So. 2d 1034, 1039 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (citing Singer v. State, 109 So. 2d 7, 24 (Fla.1959)).
In voir dire, defense counsel commented that the burden of proof rested solely on the State and that defendant could not be required to prove anything at trial. Defense counsel then asked a potential juror whether she thought that was fair. Her response was: “I think that you have to prove he’s innocent.” Exploring further, counsel then inquired how “someone [would go] about proving something did not happen.” She reaffirmed her belief that defendant had to prove his innocence by replying “they hire you.” Nothing in the record indicates that she ever receded from that preconception.
A juror is not impartial when she has difficulty accepting and employing the presumption of innocence. See, Overton v. State, 801 So. 2d 877, 891-93 (Fla.2001); see also, Hamilton v. State, 547 So. 2d 630 (Fla.1989), Huber v. State, 669 So. 2d 1079, 1082 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Lowe v. State, 718 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). This juror’s responses were sufficient to establish her lack of impartiality. It was error for the trial court to deny the challenge for cause.
Reversed for New Trial.
SHAHOOD, J. and LEWIS, TERRY P., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rentas v. State, 237 So. 3d 368 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited (11 total)
- Singer v. State, 109 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 1959)
- Hill v. State, 477 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 1985)
- Overton v. State, 801 So. 2d 877 (Fla. 2001)
- Jenkins v. State, 824 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Hamilton v. State, 547 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 1989)
- Huber v. State, 669 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Rosine Rutt v. Jungle Larry's Safari Land, Inc., 718 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- State v. Stein, 718 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Slater v. State, 910 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Martin v. State, 931 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)