MARC BENAYER, 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.
Marc Benayer appeals his conviction for first-degree murder and related firearm offenses stemming from a shooting at a temple in Boca Raton. The appellate court affirmed his conviction, rejecting claims that the trial court erred in competency findings, jury selection questioning, and evidentiary rulings.
The appellate court found no error in any of the issues raised. Specifically, regarding the jury selection questioning, the trial court did not invade the jury's pardon power by asking jurors whether they would follow the law and find guilty if convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, as the jury was properly instructed on lesser included offenses and actually convicted on some lesser offenses.
[1] A trial court does not err by asking prospective jurors if they will follow the law and convict if the State proves its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
[2] A trial court's questioning of prospective jurors about their willingness to convict upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not improperly invade the jury's pardon pow…
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“recognizing the jury's pardon power”
The court acknowledged the established principle that juries possess the power to convict of lesser included offenses, citing State v. Wimberly
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBenayer was charged with first-degree murder with a firearm, four counts of aggravated assault with a firearm, and shooting into a building following …
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 Competency To Represent Oneself cases and more on FLexlaw
Marc Benayer timely appeals his judgments of conviction and sentences stemming from a shooting at Chabad Weltman Temple in Boca Raton, Florida. Benayer was charged with first-degree murder with a firearm, four counts of aggravated assault with a firearm, and one count of shooting into a building. A jury trial ensued which resulted in the jury finding Benayer guilty of first-degree murder, one count of aggravated assault with a firearm, three counts of improper exhibition of a firearm (as a lesser included offense of aggravated assault with a firearm), and one count of discharging a firearm in public (as a lesser included offense of shooting into a building).
On appeal, Benayer raises a number of issues, including whether the trial court erred in finding him competent to stand trial and to represent himself; the assignment of error to certain comments made by the trial court, the State, and one of the *861State’s witnesses during the trial; and the trial court’s denial of his motion for mistrial after a witness testified that Benayer had tried to kill him. We find no error as to any of these issues and write to address only the trial court’s statements during jury selection.
During jury selection, the trial court asked members of the jury panel whether they would “promise” to convict Benayer if the State proved the charges beyond a reasonable doubt:
THE COURT: If at the end of the case, you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, and you know exactly what that is because I gave you the definition, well then you find him guilty.
THE COURT: At the end of this case, you’re convinced beyond a reasonable doubt will you promise me you’ll find him guilty?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR GALIN: Yes. THE COURT: If you’re not, will you promise me you’ll find him not guilty? PROSPECTIVE JUROR GALIN: Yes.
The trial court continued this line of questioning with several other prospective jurors, and overruled Benayer’s objection to the questions.
Benayer argues that the trial court’s questions invaded the jury’s pardon power to convict him of a lesser included offense. See, e.g., State v. Wimberly, 498 So.2d 929, 932 (Fla.1986) (recognizing the jury’s pardon power). We disagree. The trial court properly instructed the jury on the lesser included offenses for the charges against Benayer, so the jury was made aware of its option to convict of one of the lesser included offenses. In fact, on several of the charges, the jury found Benayer guilty of one of the lesser included offenses instead of the charged offense. The trial court did not invade the jury’s pardon power by asking the jurors whether they would follow the law and find the appellant guilty if they were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.
Affirmed.
FARMER and LEVINE, JJ., concur.