GARY HARPER, 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.
The court held that a trial court has the discretion to recall a jury that has not yet been discharged to correct clerical errors in its verdict.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty on lesser charges but failed to complete the aggravating factors section of the verdict form. The trial court im…
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 Jury Contamination cases and more on FLexlaw
Gary Harper appeals his judgment of conviction and sentence. We affirm because it was within the trial court’s discretion to recall a jury that had not yet been discharged in order to correct a clerical error in its verdict.
The State charged Harper with kidnapping and burglary with an assault or battery. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of the lesser count of false imprisonment, and of simple burglary. The jury read the verdict, and the court polled the jury. The court then reviewed the verdict form and found that the jury had failed to fill out completely the verdict form to indicate either the presence or absence of aggravating factors for burglary. The court immediately resubmitted the verdict form to the jury for completion. The jury completed the verdict form, finding existence of the aggravating factors that: the burglary was committed in a dwelling, with a human being inside, and that Harper committed both an assault and battery inside the dwelling. The court then polled the jury again and thereafter excused the jury.
The standard of review for challenges to a trial court’s decision to accept or reject a verdict is abuse of discretion. See J.T.A. Factors, Inc. v. Philcon Servs., Inc., 820 So.2d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). A trial court may recall a jury after being discharged to clear inconsistency, ambiguity, defect, or clerical error, provided that thei’e has not been opportunity for jury *1093contamination. See Thomas v. State, 789 So.2d 1104 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Davis v. State, 631 So.2d 318 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). Here, as the jury had not yet been discharged, there was no opportunity for jury contamination. In addition, the jury’s inadvertent failure to fill in part the verdict form constituted clerical error. Thus, the court did not abuse its discretion when it resubmitted the verdict form to the jury for completion.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Charlaya Joanne Elaine Moore v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)…h the verdict. The trial court denied the motion for new trial and sentenced Appellant to concurrent terms of three years in prison. This Court reviews for an abuse of discretion the trial court’s decision to accept a verdict. See Harper v. State, 66 So. 3d 1092, 1092 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.440 outlines the procedure for rendering a jury verdict. Under this rule, the trial court asks the foreperson if the jury panel reached an agreement on the verdict. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3…
Authorities Cited
- J.T.A. Factors, Inc. v. Philcon Servs., Inc., 820 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- Harrison v. Fla. State Hosp. & the Div. of Risk Mgmt., 631 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Devandal Thomas v. State, 789 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)