LAWRENCE W. STONE, 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.
Lawrence Stone was convicted by jury of two counts of manslaughter (one count involving driving while intoxicated) and sentenced to seven years imprisonment. On appeal, Stone challenged the trial court's denial of his motions to quash and disqualify the jury panel after two jurors made prejudicial statements during voir dire, but the appellate court found no error in the trial court's rulings.
The trial court did not err in denying the motions to quash and disqualify the panel. The prejudicial remarks of two jurors, even when made in the presence of other panel members, do not provide grounds for attacking or disqualifying the entire jury panel.
“We find no error in the court's ruling on the motion to quash and disqualify the panel. The remarks complained of were not such as would afford grounds for attacking the entire panel.”
The court's holding that prejudicial statements by individual jurors do not justify disqualification of the entire panel.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStone was charged with manslaughter by driving an automobile while intoxicated and manslaughter by automobile. During jury voir dire, juror Pinta reve…
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 Prejudice cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was charged by a two count information with committing man*677slaughter by driving an automobile while intoxicated and manslaughter by automobile. He entered a plea of not guilty. Upon trial by a jury he was found guilty as charged and sentenced to a term of seven years in the state penitentiary.
Appellant’s first point challenges the correctness of the trial judge’s denial of motions to quash and disqualify a jury panel after the examination on voir dire elicited answers that showed that two of the jurors were prejudiced.
The following questions and answers relate to the examination of Mr. Pinta.
“Q. Do You know the defendant, Lawrence W. Stone?
“A. Yes.
“Q. How long have you known him?
“A. Well, he had an accident with me. He hit my car.”
The questions and answers relating to Mr. Kerr’s examination are:
“Q. You’re not conscious of any bias or prejudice for or against this type of case?
“A. Only Pinta is my brother-in-law and I am biased.
“Q. In other words, you have a. fixed opinion as to the guilt or innocence of this defendant?
“A. Let’s say I would be biased.”
One of these jurors was excused for cause and the other upon stipulation. The other jurors were instructed to disregard the remarks of the two excused jurors. Defendant’s counsel thereupon moved to disqualify the entire panel on the ground that these answers were made in their presence and thereby prejudiced defendant’s right to a fair and impartial trial. Denial of the motions was followed by the court’s instruction to the impaneled jurors to disregard the remarks of the two excused jurors.
We find no error in the court’s ruling on the motion to quash and disqualify the panel. The remarks complained of were not such as would afford grounds for attacking the entire panel. Lunday v. State, 50 Okl. Crim. 431, 298 P. 1054 (1931); 76 A.L.R. 2d 678.
We have carefully considered the remaining points urged by appellant as grounds for reversal, but find them to be without substantial merit. It is our conclusion, after careful consideration of the briefs, arguments of counsel and record on appeal, that the trial was free of harmful error. Therefore, the judgment and sentence will not be disturbed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Taj Marion Collier v. State, 695 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…. 2d 940 (Fla.1996); Garcia v. State, 594 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Dunn v. State, 492 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); State v. Cromartie, 419 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Stevens v. State, 251 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971); Stone v. State, 208 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968).…