913.03
Grounds for challenge to individual jurors for cause.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
913.03 Grounds for challenge to individual jurors for cause.—A challenge for cause to an individual juror may be made only on the following grounds:
(1) The juror does not have the qualifications required by law;
(2) The juror is of unsound mind or has a bodily defect that renders him or her incapable of performing the duties of a juror, except that, in a civil action, deafness or hearing impairment shall not be the sole basis of a challenge for cause of an individual juror;
(3) The juror has conscientious beliefs that would preclude him or her from finding the defendant guilty;
(4) The juror served on the grand jury that found the indictment or on a coroner’s jury that inquired into the death of a person whose death is the subject of the indictment or information;
(5) The juror served on a jury formerly sworn to try the defendant for the same offense;
(6) The juror served on a jury that tried another person for the offense charged in the indictment, information, or affidavit;
(7) The juror served as a juror in a civil action brought against the defendant for the act charged as an offense;
(8) The juror is an adverse party to the defendant in a civil action, or has complained against or been accused by the defendant in a criminal prosecution;
(9) The juror is related by blood or marriage within the third degree to the defendant, the attorneys of either party, the person alleged to be injured by the offense charged, or the person on whose complaint the prosecution was instituted;
(10) The juror has a state of mind regarding the defendant, the case, the person alleged to have been injured by the offense charged, or the person on whose complaint the prosecution was instituted that will prevent the juror from acting with impartiality, but the formation of an opinion or impression regarding the guilt or innocence of the defendant shall not be a sufficient ground for challenge to a juror if he or she declares and the court determines that he or she can render an impartial verdict according to the evidence;
(11) The juror was a witness for the state or the defendant at the preliminary hearing or before the grand jury or is to be a witness for either party at the trial;
(12) The juror is a surety on defendant’s bail bond in the case.
History.—s. 184, ch. 19554, 1939; CGL 1940 Supp. 8663(191); s. 85, ch. 70-339; s. 5, ch. 93-125; s. 1520, ch. 97-102.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 58
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1944–2025 · leading case: Smith v. State
Smith v. State (2009)
“The statute does not contain a specific ground for challenge based on the prospective juror's status as a victim (or relative of a victim) of another defendant in an unrelated criminal case.”
Busby v. State (2005)
“These grounds include: the absence of qualifications required by law; the juror being of unsound mind or beset by physical defects rendering him unable to perform the duties of a juror; the juror having conscientious beliefs that would preclude finding the defendant guilty; and…”
Matarranz v. State (2013)
“In derogation of both section 913.03 and our case law recognizing the manifest error standard of review and the role of trial courts in making credibility determinations, the majority makes the unprecedented declaration that there is a class of prospective jurors with “immutable…”
Miller v. State (2010)
“After reviewing the responses of juror 407 during voir dire, we conclude that the trial court acted within its discretion in excusing the juror for cause.”
Wade v. State (2010)
“We have previously explained that [a] potential juror may be excused "for cause" if the juror has a state of mind regarding the case "that will prevent the juror from acting with impartiality.”
McKenzie v. State (2010)
“The law does not support the majority's reliance on a categorical rule of exclusion for prospective jurors based on a juror's relationship with a murder victim in an unrelated case or a juror's relationship with a law enforcement officer in an unrelated case.”
Johnson v. State (2007)
“" § 913.03(10), Fla. Stat. (2006). In a capital case, this standard is met if a juror's views on the death penalty "prevent or substantially impair the performance of his or her duties as a juror in accordance with the juror's instructions or oath.”
Singer v. State (1959)
“" Section 913.03, F.S.A., states that a challenge for cause may be made only on specified grounds and proceeds to list some twelve such grounds.”
Cook v. State (1989)
“See also § 913.03(10), Fla. Stat. (1987) ("formation of an opinion or impression regarding the guilt or innocence of the defendant shall not be a sufficient ground for challenging a juror if he declares and the court determines that he can render an impartial verdict according…”
Alen v. State (1992)
“431(c), or perhaps to the applicable criminal statute, § 913.03, Fla. Stat. (1991); the abolition of the peremptory challenge itself could be accomplished by applicable rule deletions.”
Ross v. State (1985)
“Section 913.03(9), Florida Statutes (1983), states that a juror may be challenged for cause on the ground that "[t]he juror is related by blood or marriage within the third degree to .”
Banks v. State (2010)
“(2005) (explaining that one can challenge a juror for cause based upon the juror’s “state of mind regarding the defendant, the case, the person alleged to have been injured by the offense charged, or the person on whose complaint the prosecution instituted that will prevent the…”
— 913.03(1) — 1 case
Busby v. State (2005)
“These grounds include: the absence of qualifications required by law; the juror being of unsound mind or beset by physical defects rendering him unable to perform the duties of a juror; the juror having conscientious beliefs that would preclude finding the defendant guilty; and…”
— 913.03(10) — 33 cases
Smith v. State (2009)
“The statute does not contain a specific ground for challenge based on the prospective juror's status as a victim (or relative of a victim) of another defendant in an unrelated criminal case.”
Miller v. State (2010)
“After reviewing the responses of juror 407 during voir dire, we conclude that the trial court acted within its discretion in excusing the juror for cause.”
Matarranz v. State (2013)
“In derogation of both section 913.03 and our case law recognizing the manifest error standard of review and the role of trial courts in making credibility determinations, the majority makes the unprecedented declaration that there is a class of prospective jurors with “immutable…”
Wade v. State (2010)
“We have previously explained that [a] potential juror may be excused "for cause" if the juror has a state of mind regarding the case "that will prevent the juror from acting with impartiality.”
McKenzie v. State (2010)
“The law does not support the majority's reliance on a categorical rule of exclusion for prospective jurors based on a juror's relationship with a murder victim in an unrelated case or a juror's relationship with a law enforcement officer in an unrelated case.”
— 913.03(11) — 1 case
Singer v. State (1959)
“" Section 913.03, F.S.A., states that a challenge for cause may be made only on specified grounds and proceeds to list some twelve such grounds.”
— 913.03(2) — 1 case
Cook v. State (1989)
“See also § 913.03(10), Fla. Stat. (1987) ("formation of an opinion or impression regarding the guilt or innocence of the defendant shall not be a sufficient ground for challenging a juror if he declares and the court determines that he can render an impartial verdict according…”
— 913.03(3) — 1 case
Kennedy v. Wainwright (1986)
— 913.03(6) — 1 case
Shahgodari v. State (1999)
— 913.03(9) — 4 cases
Ross v. State (1985)
“Section 913.03(9), Florida Statutes (1983), states that a juror may be challenged for cause on the ground that "[t]he juror is related by blood or marriage within the third degree to .”
Jenkins v. State (1980)
Denmark v. State (1995)
Polynice v. State (1990)
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.