ROBERT LOWE PARKER, 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.
Robert Parker appealed a rape conviction, challenging the jury verdict based on an affidavit from a juror claiming she voted guilty due to fear of being locked up overnight. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that a juror's internal reasoning and emotional state regarding verdict deliberation cannot be used to challenge a verdict.
The trial court properly denied the motion to vacate. A juror's internal reasoning, emotional state, or fear regarding the verdict deliberation process is a matter that essentially inheres in the verdict itself and cannot be used to challenge the verdict's validity.
[1] Juror testimony may be used to challenge a jury verdict only to show matters that do not essentially inhere in the verdict itself.
[2] Matters that essentially inhere in a verdict include a juror's assent to the verdict, misunderstanding of instructions, undue influence from fellow jurors, or mistakes in…
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“such testimony may be used to show matters which do not essentially inhere in the verdict itself”
Establishes the general rule governing when juror testimony can be used to challenge a verdict
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceParker was convicted of rape after trial by jury. After his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal, he filed a Rule 3.850 motion to vacate based on …
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 Matters Inhering In The Verdict cases and more on FLexlaw
[*427] BOYER, Chief Judge.
Appellant was tried and convicted of rape, and his conviction was affirmed by this Court. (Parker v. State, Fla.App.1st 1974, 295 So. 2d 312) He thereupon filed a motion to vacate and set aside judgment and sentence, pursuant to Rule 3.850, RCrP, in which motion he alleges that one of the jurors at his trial voted for a conviction because of an improper reason. The trial court denied the motion, and this appeal followed.
Attached to the motion to vacate was an affidavit of a 70 year old juror, Sadie B. Johnson, who averred that at 10:00 p. m. on the evening that the jury retired to ponder its verdict, the bailiff came with instructions from the judge that if a decision was not reached within five minutes, the jury would be locked up for the night. Not knowing what confinement meant, Mrs. Johnson, according to the affidavit, became fearful, changed her mind, and voted guilty in order to be able to go home that night. However, at a hearing held on the motion to vacate, Mrs. Johnson retracted the pertinent allegations in her affidavit, but instead claimed that she overheard two women jurors saying that it was possible that the jury might have to be locked up for the night. While she stated that the basic reason for her change in vote from not guilty to guilty was the fear of being locked up, she admitted on questioning from the court that she had also become disturbed about the verdict in the case upon learning of the length of the sentence that had been imposed.
The general rule in Florida to be applied when a juror’s testimony is employed to challenge a jury verdict is that such testimony may be used to show matters which do not essentially inhere in the verdict itself. (Russ v. State, Sup.Ct.Fla.1957, 95 So. 2d 594) Typical examples of matters which do not inhere in the verdict itself are: A juror being improperly approached by a party, agent, or attorney; witnesses discussing the facts or merits of the case, out of court, and in the presence of jurors; and the verdict being determined by lot or some other device of chance. A matter which does essentially inhere in the verdict itself involves, for instance, a juror not assenting to the verdict, a juror misunderstanding the instructions of the court, a juror being unduly, influenced by the statements of his fellow-jurors, or a juror being mistaken in his calculations or judgments. (Russ v. State, supra at 600)
The matter of which appellant now complains is one which essentially inheres in the verdict. It is a matter which is difficult to verify or even, in this case, to accept at all, given the vacillating nature of the juror’s testimony. Given the nature of the matter raised in appellant’s motion to vacate, the trial court was eminently correct in denying the motion.
We have fully considered appellant’s remaining point raised on appeal and have found it to be without merit.
AFFIRMED.
McCORD, J., and SCHLEGEL, LEW E, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sims v. State, 444 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 1983)…ot testifying in reaching their verdict. The general rule in Florida is that a juror’s testimony is relevant only if it concerns matters which do not essentially inhere in the verdict itself. Russ v. State, 95 So. 2d 594 (Fla.1957); Parker v. State, 336 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1st DCA), appeal dismissed, 341 So. 2d 292 (Fla.1976). A jury’s consideration of a defendant’s failure to testify is not the same as considering evidence outside the record, but is rather an example of its misunderstanding or not following the…
-
State v. Blasi, 411 So. 2d 1320 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)…EMANDED. HOBSON and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur. .In the following cases, the matters raised were held to inhere in the verdict. See State v. Ramirez, 73 So. 2d 218 (Fla.1954) (erroneous belief by one juror that majority of jury ruled); Parker v. State, 336 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976) (juror voted guilty so she wouldn’t have to be locked up for the night); Smith v. State, 330 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976) (jury mistakenly believed a lesser offense was highest offense charged); Branch v. State, 212 So. 2d 29 (F…
-
Kesick v. State, 448 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…during a portion of the trial. Among the attachments to appellant’s motion is a letter from his trial counsel apparently acknowledging the incident concerning the sleeping juror. Cf. Nova v. State, 439 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Parker v. State, 336 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). We note that these allegations were contained among a multitude of other allegations made by appellant which we find, as did the trial court, lack merit. ANSTEAD, C.J., and DOWNEY and DELL, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Russ v. State, 95 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 1957)
- Parker v. State, 295 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)