DANNY CALDEVILLA
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Trial courts may use hypothetical questions during voir dire to test jurors' ability to apply the law, provided the questions do not pretry the case and are based on proper legal instructions.
[1] Hypothetical questions posed during jury voir dire are permissible when designed to test whether prospective jurors could correctly apply the law to testimony and physica…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“While a trial judge is tasked with explaining to jurors the law they are to apply, the trial judge should rely upon, and seldom stray from, Florida's Standard Jury Instructions. This should not be interpreted as prohibiting a trial judge from using a hypothetical that properly explains the law, but due care must be taken in the process.”
Warren v. State, establishing standards for hypothetical questions in voir dire
Caldevilla appealed his conviction, challenging the trial court's use of hypothetical questions during jury voir dire. The trial court used hypothetic…
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 Hypothetical Questions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. Warren v. State, 307 So. 3d 871, 872 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (finding no fundamental error occurred when trial court offered
“prosecution-friendly” hypotheticals during voir dire and stating, “We hasten to add, however, that while a trial judge is tasked with explaining to jurors the law they are to apply, the trial judge should rely upon, and seldom stray from, Florida's Standard Jury Instructions. This should not be interpreted as prohibiting a trial judge from using a hypothetical that properly explains the law, but due care must be taken in the process.”); Kendle v. State, 255 So. 3d 400, 413 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (finding that comments made by the trial court concerning the defendant’s right to remain silent “[fell] within the realm of what [was] permitted, but [were] also necessary. Without such cautionary instructions, the jurors would be free to infer or speculate that a defendant who does not testify must surely be guilty, otherwise he would take the stand in his own behalf.”); Moore v. State, 939 So. 2d 1116, 1118 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion by permitting hypothetical questions during voir dire and stating, “Hypothetical questions, ‘designed to determine whether jurors could correctly apply the law, are permissible.’ . . . The hypothetical questions did not pretry the case, but tested the venire’s ability to accept both testimonial and physical evidence.”) (quoting Williams v. State, 931 So. 2d 999, 1000 (Fla. 3d DCA
2006)); Jones v. State, 216 So. 3d 742, 744 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (“To obtain a fair and impartial jury, and for ‘voir dire examination of jurors . . . to have any meaning, counsel must be allowed to probe attitudes, beliefs and philosophies for the hidden biases and prejudices designed to be elicited by such examination.’”) (quoting Lowe v. State, 718 So. 2d 920, 923 (Fla.
4th DCA 1998)).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Warren v. State, 307 So. 3d 871 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)
- Moore v. State, 939 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)
- Eleck Williams v. State, 931 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)
- Jones v. State, 216 So. 3d 742 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)
- Lowe v. State, 718 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)