ROBERT B. ESSIX, 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 trial judge did not abuse discretion in restricting voir dire.
Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and robbery. He appealed, arguing the judge unduly restricted defense counsel's voir dire examination.…
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 Voir Dire Examination cases and more on FLexlaw
[*665] PER CURIAM.
Defendant, Robert Essix, appeals his conviction for first degree murder and robbery, and argues that the trial judge unduly restricted the length and scope of defense counsel’s voir dire examination of the prospective jurors. We find no merit in this argument.
The extent to which parties may be permitted to go in examining prospective jurors on voir dire is subject to the sound discretion of the trial judge, the exercise of which will not be interfered with unless it is clearly abused. Mizell v. New Kingsley Beach, Inc., 122 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960); Barker v. Randolph, 239 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970).
The record demonstrates that the trial judge not only permitted defense counsel to engage in extensive voir dire examination, but also granted him wide latitude with respect to the scope of that examination. Furthermore, defense counsel exhausted all peremptory challenges to which he was entitled and expressed to the trial judge his satisfaction with the jury which was ultimately sworn.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
John M. Purdy and his wife v. Gulf Breeze Enters., Inc., 403 So. 2d 1325 (Fla. 1981)…insurance companies. Parties only have the right “to conduct a reasonable examination . . . . ” Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.431(b). The extent to which parties may examine prospective jurors on voir dire lies within the trial judge’s discretion. Essix v. State, 347 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Mizell v. New Kingsley Beach, Inc., 122 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). We do not find that the trial judge clearly abused his discretion in this case. Therefore the appellant’s second contention is without merit. We affirm the…
-
Peri v. State, 426 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…within the judge’s province. Ristaino v. Ross, 424 U.S. 589, 594-95, 96 S.Ct. 1017, 1020, 47 L.Ed.2d 258, 263 (1976). The latitude which is given the parties in examining prospective jurors is subject to the judge’s sound discretion. Essix v. State, 347 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). The materiality and propriety of voir dire questions are to be decided by the judge. Pait v. State, 112 So. 2d 380 (Fla.1959); Story v. State, 53 So. 2d 920 (Fla.1951); Pope v. State, 84 Fla. 428, 94 So. 865 (1922); Saulsberry v.…
-
Taylor v. State, 481 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…irely proper. See Washington v. State, 432 So. 2d 44, 47 (Fla.1983); David v. State, 369 So. 2d 943, 944 (Fla.1979); Smith v. State, 365 So. 2d 704, 706-07 (Fla.1978), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 885, 100 S.Ct. 177, 62 L.Ed.2d 115 (1979); Essix v. State, 347 So. 2d 664, 665 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 357 So. 2d 185 (Fla.1978). Second, the defendant complains about the admission in evidence of a shirt and gloves. The evidence was relevant and properly admissible. See Pesaplastic v. Cincinnati Milacron Co.,…
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
- Mizell v. NEW Kingsley Beach, Inc., 122 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)
- Davis v. State, 239 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)