ARNOLD BELL AND ROBERT SMITH, APPELLANTS,
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.
Arnold Bell and Robert Smith were convicted of robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, they challenged the trial court's improper limitation of their peremptory challenges from ten to six, and the court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that defendants need not futilely request additional challenges when the court has ruled in advance that they are prohibited.
Appellants were each entitled to ten peremptory challenges under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.350 because robbery is punishable by life imprisonment. Although the trial court's limitation to six challenges was incorrect, appellants were not required to seek to exercise a seventh challenge in the face of the court's prior ruling, as they were not required to pursue a useless course when the judge had announced in advance it would be fruitless. The improper limitation of peremptory challenges constitutes reversible error.
[1] A defendant charged with a felony punishable by imprisonment for life is entitled to ten peremptory challenges.
[2] A defendant is not required to attempt to exercise peremptory challenges beyond the number the court erroneously states are available when the court has clearly indicated…
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“Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.350 clearly provides that each party shall be allowed ten peremptory challenges if the offense charged is punishable by death or imprisonment for life.”
Establishes the legal entitlement to ten peremptory challenges for offenses punishable by life imprisonment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants Bell and Smith were tried together for robbery, a felony of the first degree punishable by life imprisonment or any lesser term of years. P…
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 Reversible Error cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIMES, Judge.
Appellants were convicted of robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment. Their only points on appeal worthy of consideration relate to whether they were improperly limited in their exercise of peremptory challenges to the jury.
The appellants were tried together. Pri-or to trial the court ruled that they were each entitled to only six peremptory challenges rather than the ten peremptory challenges which they had requested. An assertion of the right to ten peremptory challenges was reiterated during voir dire. Each appellant exercised six peremptory challenges, but neither of them sought to exercise a seventh peremptory challenge against any particular juror. The panel was then accepted by appellants’ counsel without further objection.
Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.350 clearly provides that each party shall be allowed ten peremptory challenges if the offense charged is punishable by death or imprisonment for life. If the offense charged is a felony not punishable by death or imprisonment for life, each party is entitled to six peremptory challenges. The statute under which the appellants were charged prescribed that robbery was a felony of the first degree punishable by imprisonment for life or for any lesser term of years.1 Therefore, the appellants were each entitled to ten peremptory challenges.
Where the court incorrectly limits the number of peremptory challenges and the defendant timely attempts to challenge a juror beyond the limits set by the court, the refusal to allow the challenge is reversible error. Meade v. State, 85 So. 2d 613 (Fla.1956). On the other hand, where a defendant has not even sought to exercise peremptory challenges up to the limit allowed by the court, he can hardly be heard to complain that he was legally entitled to additional peremptory challenges. Cf. Wilson v. State, 304 So. 2d 119 (Fla.1974). The question here is whether it was necessary for each of the appellants to seek to exercise a seventh peremptory challenge in the face of the court’s prior ruling that each of them was entitled only to six. We think not. In the words of our Supreme Court, the appellants’ attorneys were “not required to pursue a completely useless course when the judge had announced in advance that it would be fruitless.” Bailey v. State, 224 So. 2d 296 (Fla.1969); accord, Birge v. State, 92 So. 2d 819 (Fla.1957).
To argue that the appellants have failed to demonstrate prejudice because there was no showing that any juror selected to hear the case was biased or unfair is beside the point.2 Each appellant was permitted to challenge a prescribed number of jurors for any reason, or for that matter, for no reason. The right to use a peremptory challenge has long been regarded as a cherished tool in the selection of an impartial jury. An improper limitation of that right necessarily inheres in the jury verdict.
The judgments are reversed, and the cases are remanded for a new trial.
McNULTY, C. J., and BOARDMAN, J., concur. . § 813.011, Fla.Stat. (1973).
. Young v. State, 234 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 1970), is inapplicable because the defendant’s belated request to exercise a peremptory challenge which he had failed to try to use because of mistaken reliance upon the clerk did not come until after the jury had been sworn. At that point, Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.310 required a showing of good cause to permit the additional challenge.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Newsome v. State, 355 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)…ppellant was charged, a burglary in the course of which the offender commits an assault upon any person, is punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life imprisonment. Section 810.02(2), Florida Statutes (1975). In Bell v. State, 338 So. 2d 1328 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976), we held that the defendants, who were charged with robbery, a felony punishable by imprisonment for life or any lesser term of years, were entitled to ten peremptory challenges. We further held that restricting them to six consti…
-
Dante v. State, 903 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…d to more, from those situations in which the trial court rules that a defendant is only entitled to six peremptory challenges and despite defendant’s assertions that he is entitled to more, refuses to excuse the challenged juror. See Bell v. State, 338 So. 2d 1328 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976) (where trial court ruled prior to trial that each side was entitled to only six peremptory challenges when the defendant was charged with a first degree felony punishable by life and the defendant reiterated during voir dire his a…
-
Benoit Verreautt v. State, 411 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…limited Verreautt to six peremptory challenges, Verreautt made no assertion that he was entitled to more until well after the verdict was returned and judgment pronounced.1 Compare Newsome v. State, 355 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Bell v. State, 338 So. 2d 1328 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). The error was such that had it been timely called to the attention of the trial court, it could have been immediately cor- [*235] reeted. Verreautt’s failure to timely object to the limitation imposed precludes him from relief on…
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
- Wilson v. State, 304 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 1974)
- Young v. State, 234 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 1970)
- Birge v. State, 92 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 1957)
- Meade v. State, 85 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 1956)
- Bailey v. State, 224 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 1969)