EDDIE LEE HALL, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Voir Dire cases and more on FLexlaw
McNULTY, Acting Chief Judge.
The only issue meriting discussion is whether, for the purposes of the speedy trial rule, a trial commences when the prospective jurors have been sworn for examination of their qualifications to act as jurors for the week but are not seated for voir dire in the particular trial. The case of State v. May, 332 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), answered this question in the negative. We agree. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191(a)(3).
In the instant case it appears that on the last day of the speedy trial period, the first day of the trial week, prospective jurors were sworn to examine their qualifications to serve for the week. None were seated for voir dire in this specific case. The next day appellant’s motion for discharge was filed, heard and erroneously denied. The speedy trial time had run. Appellant was, and is, entitled to discharge.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
GRIMES and OTT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Alphonso Stuart v. State, 360 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 1978)…and qualifying of a panel of jurors for the week does not amount to commencement where the case is not called for trial, and a prospective trial jury is not called and seated for voir dire in the particular case, citing Maines. Accord Hall v. State, 348 So. 2d 932 (Fla.2d DCA 1977). II. Unlike the trial court, the district court implicitly recognized that the trial was not commenced prior to the expiration of the 180th day. This conclusion would have been required under its holding in May, above. The distri…
-
Moore v. State, 368 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. 1979)…Stuart v. State, 360 So. 2d 406, 409 (Fla. 1978). In accordance with our decision in Stuart, we hold that under Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191(a)(3) a trial commences when a jury panel is sworn for voir dire in a specific trial. See Hall v. State, 348 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); State v. May, 332 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 339 So. 2d 1172 (Fla.1976); State ex rel. Maines v. Baker, 254 So. 2d 207 (Fla.1971). The question having been answered contrary to the District Court’s holding, the…
-
Moore v. State, 358 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)…ond the 180 day limit. Two appellate cases have dealt with these identical facts and have come to an opposite and more sensible conclusion than we do now. Their opinion is that the defendant in such circumstances should be discharged: Hall v. State, 348 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977) and State v. May, 332 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1976) cert. den. 339 So. 2d 1172 (Fla.1977).1 However, we feel compelled after a close reading of, the applicable rule and the Supreme Court case of State ex rel. Maines v. Baker, 254…
Authorities Cited
- State v. MAY, 332 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)