King v. State, 622 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). · Go Syfert
Search
King v. State, 622 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
Quick Summary

A prospective juror must be excused for cause if there is any reasonable doubt that they cannot render a verdict based solely on the evidence.

During voir dire, a prospective juror stated that the defendant resembled an assailant who previously robbed him and expressed uncertainty about his ability to disregard that experience. The trial court denied the defense challenge for cause, forcing the defense to use a peremptory challenge on that juror and denying a request for an additional peremptory challenge to strike another objectionable juror. The court applies the rule that a prospective juror must be excused for cause if there is any reasonable doubt that he cannot render a verdict based solely on the evidence. Because the juror’s statements created reasonable doubt regarding his impartiality and the trial court’s rehabilitation was insufficient, the court holds that the denial of the challenge for cause required a new trial.

14 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Kerestesy v. State, 760 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 135 Determining juror excusability based on juror bias5 citing casesdeciding if there is any reasonable doubt that a prospective juror cannot render a verdict based solely on the evidence submitted and the trial court's instruction of the law, the juror should be excused2 citing courts put it this way
  • Kerestesy v. State, 760 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).published
    See Singer v. State, 109 So.2d 7, 24 (Fla.1959); Huber, 669 So.2d at 1081 ; King v. State, 622 So.2d 134, 135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).
  • Ferguson v. State, 693 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).published
    “If there is any reasonable doubt that a prospective juror cannot render a verdict based solely on the evidence submitted and the trial court's instruction of the law, he should be excused”
  • Gill v. State, 683 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996).published
    E.g., Coggins v. State, 677 So.2d 926, 927 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Perea v. State, 657 So.2d 8, 9 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 663 So.2d 632 (Fla.1995); Jones v. State, 652 So.2d 967, 969 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); King v. State, 622 So.2d 134, 135…
  • Chattin v. State, 779 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).published
    See Ferguson v. State, 693 So.2d 596, 597 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (quoting King v. State, 622 So.2d 134, 135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)) ("If there is any reasonable doubt that a prospective juror cannot render a verdict based solely on the evidence su…
  • Kelly v. State, 689 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).published
    (deciding if there is any reasonable doubt that a prospective juror cannot render a verdict based solely on the evidence submitted and the trial court's instruction of the law, the juror should be excused)
a prospective juror should have been excused for cause after asserting that he had been victim of a crime by an unknown assailant who resembled the defendant and the juror was uncertain whether he could put aside his experience in this caseno pin page on record · 2 citing cases listed
  • Vega v. State, 781 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).published
    (a prospective juror should have been excused for cause after asserting that he had been victim of a crime by an unknown assailant who resembled the defendant and the juror was uncertain whether he could put aside his ex…)
  • Coggins v. State, 677 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996).published
    (holding that a prospective juror should have been excused for cause after he asserted that he was the victim of a crime by an unknown assailant who resembled the defendant and the juror was uncertain whether he could pu…)
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
James KING, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
92-1890.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Aug 3, 1993.
Published opinion
622 So. 2d 134
1993 WL 288731
Hubbart, Ferguson and Goderich.
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Julie M. Levitt, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Fleur J. Lobree, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before HUBBART, FERGUSON and GODERICH, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

During voir dire, prospective juror Zapata stated that the defendant, James King, resembled the unknown assailant who stole his car from him at gunpoint. Zapata noted that the defendant was wearing a red jacket and that the unknown assailant also wore a red jacket. The following colloquy took place:

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Do you think that you would be unable to look at Mr. King and just not think about what happened[*135] to you and disconnect all of that from him?
[MR. ZAPATA]: The red jacket is something. I'm not really sure.
... .
THE COURT: I'll ask Mr. Zapata, do you believe that you can put your experience out of your mind and just judge this case on a one on one basis?
[MR. ZAPATA]: Yes, Your Honor, I believe that I can.

The defense challenged prospective juror Zapata for cause. The trial court denied the challenge. Thereafter, the defense used one of its peremptory challenges to excuse prospective juror Zapata. The defense requested an additional peremptory challenge to strike an objectionable juror. The trial court denied the request. The objectionable juror sat on the jury.

The defendant was found guilty as charged. The defendant moved for a new trial alleging that the trial court erred in denying his challenge for cause. The trial court granted the defendant's motion for new trial. At a later date, the trial court reversed its prior ruling and reinstated the defendant's convictions and sentences. This appeal follows.

The defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his challenge for cause against prospective juror Zapata. We agree.

If there is any reasonable doubt that a prospective juror cannot render a verdict based solely on the evidence submitted and the trial court's instruction of the law, he should be excused. Farias v. State, 540 So.2d 201 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). There is no doubt that a reasonable doubt existed as to prospective juror Zapata. Prospective juror Zapata stated that he thought that the defendant looked liked the unknown assailant who stole his car from him at gunpoint and that he was not sure whether he could put this experience out of his mind when judging the defendant. Moreover, the trial court's attempt to rehabilitate juror Zapata was insufficient. See Garcia v. State, 570 So.2d 1082 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Since the defendant was forced to exhaust his peremptory challenges on prospective juror Zapata, a juror who should have been excused for cause, and the trial court refused his request for an additional peremptory challenge to strike an objectionable juror who eventually sat on the jury, we reverse and remand for a new trial. Trotter v. State, 576 So.2d 691 (Fla. 1990); Pentecost v. State, 545 So.2d 861 (Fla. 1989).

In light of our decision, we do not address the remaining issues raised on appeal.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.