CHARMARKCO SHAWN EVANS, 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.
Charmarkco Evans was convicted of aggravated assault and false imprisonment with a firearm. The appellate court reversed his conviction and remanded for a new trial because a prospective juror's comment during voir dire about knowing the defendants "quite a bit already" from his work as a jail detention deputy violated Evans' constitutional right to an impartial jury by suggesting to other jurors that the defendants had prior criminal involvement.
Yes. The court held that the prospective juror's comment violated Evans' constitutional right to a trial by an impartial jury because other jurors could have understood the comment as an indication that the defendants had prior criminal charges and/or convictions, similar to the constitutional violation that occurred in Richardson v. State. The trial court erred in denying the mistrial motion.
[1] A prospective juror's statement that they have had significant contact with a defendant through their job as a jail detention deputy may imply prior criminal charges or c…
[2] A trial court errs by denying a motion for mistrial when a prospective juror's comments suggest the defendant has prior criminal history.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Defendants have a constitutional right to a trial by an impartial jury.”
Establishes the fundamental constitutional right at issue in the case
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCharmarkco Evans and his brother Sharmarkco were jointly tried for aggravated assault and false imprisonment with a firearm. During jury selection, a …
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 False Imprisonment With A Firearm cases and more on FLexlaw
Charmarkco Evans and his brother, Sharmarkco, were jointly tried for aggravated assault and false imprisonment with a firearm. In this appeal, Charmarkco Evans insists a prospective juror’s comments during voir dire compelled the granting of his motion for mistrial. We find merit in Evans’ argument, reverse the conviction, and remand for a new trial.
During jury selection, in response to questions regarding whether anyone was familiar with the case or the parties, one of the prospective jurors indicated he worked at the county jail and knew the defendants “from work.” Later, this same juror indicated that he was a detention deputy at the jail. Finally, when the pros*186ecutor began to question this juror as to whether he could be fair given his job as a jail detention deputy, the prospective juror responded that he had been in contact with the Evans brothers “[qjuite a bit already.” This prompted an objection and a motion for mistrial, which was denied. The objection and motion were renewed prior to the swearing of the jury. The trial judge persisted in her ruling, remarking that the juror had.indicated only that he worked at the jail and knew the defendants from jail and since everyone knows that a person goes to jail upon arrest, there was no prejudice.
“Defendants have a constitutional right to a trial by an impartial jury.” Holt v. State, 987 So.2d 237, 239 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). This right is violated when jurors are inadvertently informed that the defendant has other, pending charges. See, e.g., Holt, 987 So.2d at 239-40 (reversible error where defendant was to be tried on a single count of armed robbery, but judge made comment indicating defendant was charged with two counts); Jackson v. State, 729 So.2d 947, 950-51 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (reversible error where defendant was to be tried on single count and, in presence of jury, judge asked prosecutor whether he was proceeding on all four counts). Such right is also violated where the jury is inadvertently informed that the defendant, whose guilt they are about to decide, is a convicted felon. In Richardson v. State, 666 So.2d 223 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), juries were simultaneously selected for three criminal trials. During jury selection, a prospective juror indicated several times that she worked as a corrections officer at Polk Correctional Institution. When jury selection began for Richardson’s trial, there was an exchange between this juror and the prosecutor. “The exchange between the prosecutor and this prospective member of the jury suggested that she knew Richardson through her employment, implying that he was a convicted felon who previously served time.” Id. at 224. The Second District held that it was error for the trial court to deny defense counsel’s motion to strike the entire veni-re.
Similarly, here, as in Richardson, the other jurors could have understood the deputy’s comment that he had been in contact with the Evans brothers “[qjuite a bit already” as an indication that, through his job, the deputy had had multiple occasions, over time, to come into contact with the defendant and, thus, as a suggestion that the defendant had prior criminal charges and/or convictions. Accordingly, we reverse the defendant’s judgment of conviction and remand for a new trial.
Reversed and Remanded.
GROSS, C.J., and CIKLIN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dontae Morris v. State, 219 So. 3d 33 (Fla. 2017)…Importantly, Juror K did not reveal in. the comments she made in the presence of the jury any of her knowledge of other crimes. Additionally, the questioning of Juror K was promptly stopped before she revealed anything improper. Cf. Evans v. State, 36 So. 3d 185, 185-86 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (reversing and remanding for a new trial because a prospective juror’s comments during voir dire that he knew the defendant from his work as a detention deputy at the jail suggested that the defendant had prior criminal c…
-
Dalia Dippolito v. State, 143 So. 3d 1080 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…ugh appellant had not been formally charged with a crime based on the alleged poisoning, we find the comment analogous to comments informing prospective jurors of a defendant’s criminal history, other pending charges, or arrests. See Evans v. State, 36 So. 3d 185, 186 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); Holt v. State, 987 So. 2d 237, 239 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); Wilding v. State, 427 So. 2d 1069,1069 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). The state argues any error was harmless “[i]n light of the video evidence of Appellant soliciting the under…
-
Guzman v. State, 238 So. 3d 146 (Fla. 2018)…ion in denying defendant's motion to strike the jury panel where prospective juror's remarks did not reveal her knowledge of the defendant's previous crimes), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 452, 199 L.Ed.2d 334 (2017) ; cf. Evans v. State , 36 So. 3d 185, 185-86 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (reversing for a new trial because a venireperson's comments during voir dire that he knew the defendant from his work at the jail implied that the defendant had been previously convicted of a crime). Accordingly, the tri…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Richardson v. State, 666 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Holt v. State, 987 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
- Lavon D. Jackson v. State, 729 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)