Telemaque v. State, 591 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). · Go Syfert
Search
Telemaque v. State, 591 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Smith v. DeParry (fladistctapp, 2012-05-02)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Smith v. DeParry
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2012 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. Bury, 591 So.2d at 677 (holding that the testimony by a witness to the execution of a will that the carbon copy produced at the hearing was identical to the original will executed by the decedent was sufficient to meet the requirements of a “correct copy” under the statute for proving the content of the lost original).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Montgomery v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1993 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Telemaque v. State, 591 So.2d 675 (Fla. 3d DCA1991) (same), and Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.310 (“The state or defendant may challenge an individual prospective juror before the juror is sworn to try the cause_”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Michael TELEMAQUE, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
91-1649.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Dec 31, 1991.
591 So. 2d 675
1991 WL 276884
Schwartz, C.J., and Baskin and Goderich.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Valerie Jonas, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Consuelo Maingot, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BASKIN and GODERICH, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals his convictions and sentences for battery on a law enforcement officer, battery, and resisting arrest without violence. During voir dire the state asserted that defendant was not exercising his peremptory challenges in a race-neutral manner and moved to strike the panel. The trial judge denied the motion, but stated that he would not permit defendant's next peremptory challenge. When defendant attempted to exercise another peremptory challenge, the court rejected the challenge. Defendant asserts the court committed reversible error.

We agree. The trial court's denial of defendant's peremptory challenge infringed on his "right to challenge any juror, either peremptorily or for cause, prior to the time the jury is sworn." Gilliam v. State, 514 So.2d 1098, 1099 (Fla. 1987), citing Jackson v. State, 464 So.2d 1181, 1183 (Fla. 1985). The trial court's denial constitutes per se reversible error. Gilliam, 514 So.2d at 1099. We therefore reverse defendant's convictions and remand for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.