JOSE FIGUEROA, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Jose Figueroa was convicted of attempted carjacking and appealed, claiming the trial court abused its discretion by limiting individual voir dire of jurors and by admitting a portion of his pre-trial statement. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding no abuse of discretion in controlling voir dire and concluding any evidentiary error regarding the statement was harmless.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in controlling the scope of voir dire, as its control was reasonable under the circumstances. Any error in introducing the objected-to portion of the defendant's statement was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion by reasonably controlling the scope of voir dire examination.
[2] A trial court's discretion in controlling the scope of voir dire questioning will not be disturbed on appeal unless that discretion is clearly abused.
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“trial court's discretion in controlling scope of voir dire questioning will not be disturbed on appeal unless that discretion is clearly abused”
Establishes the deferential standard of review for trial court control of voir dire
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJose Figueroa was convicted of attempted carjacking. At trial, the trial court limited defense counsel's individual voir dire examination of the jury …
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 Harmless Error Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
ROTHENBERG, Judge.
The defendant, Jose Figueroa, who was convicted of attempted carjacking, claims that the trial court committed reversible error in limiting defense counsel’s individual voir dire of the jury panel. After reviewing the relevant portions of the transcript on appeal, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in exercising its control over the voir dire examination, as its control was reasonable under the circumstances. See Franqui v. State, 699 So. 2d 1312, 1322 (Fla.1997); Zamora v. State, 361 So. 2d 776, 780 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cer. denied, 372 So. 2d 472 (Fla.l979)(holding that trial court’s discretion in controlling scope of voir dire questioning will not be disturbed on appeal unless that discretion is clearly abused). We, however, caution the trial judge that precluding defense counsel from individually questioning prospective jurors on critical issues may result in reversal.
Voir dire is the first opportunity the attorneys have to establish personal contact with prospective jurors and the only occasion they have to enter into a dialogue with jurors. Prospective jurors do not respond in the same manner to inquiry by a judge as they do to questions by counsel, particularly when the trial court asks the jurors to volunteer a response to collective examinations.
Miller v. State, 785 So. 2d 662, 663 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). While the trial court certainly has the discretion to limit repetitive and argumentative voir dire, to prohibit counsel from asking improper questions or questions that illicit answers on legal issues the jurors have not been instructed on, and to preclude attorneys from pre-trying their cases or in obtaining a commitment on ultimate issues to be decided after hearing all of the evidence, a trial judge must allow counsel to ascertain latent or concealed prejudgments by prospective jurors.
The defendant additionally asserts that he is entitled to a new trial based on the trial court’s denial of his motion to redact a portion of his pre-trial statement, and its introduction by the State at trial. We decline to address the propriety of the trial court’s evidentiary ruling as we conclude that the introduction of the objected-to portion of the defendant’s statement, if error, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129,1139 (Fla.1986).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
George v. State, 251 So. 3d 262 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
-
Sheppard v. State, 143 So. 3d 1057 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…We conclude the court did not abuse its discretion by preventing appellant’s counsel from posing questions that the court concluded were misstatements of the law or improper attempts to obtain pre-commitments from the jurors. See Figueroa v. State, 952 So. 2d 1238, 1239 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (“[T]he trial court certainly has the discretion to ... prohibit counsel from asking improper questions ... and to preclude attorneys from pre-trying their cases or in obtaining a commitment on ultimate issues....”). This di…
-
Brown v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Franqui v. State (Fla. 1997)
- Ronny A. Zamora v. State, 361 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Andros Domonic Miller v. State, 785 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)