Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...1010, § 7 (1877) (capital cases: defendant — 20, state — 5; other felonies: defendant — 5, state — 2; misdemeanors: defendant — 3, state — 2). In § 2855 of the 1892 Revised Statutes the state achieved parity with defendants as to the number of peremptory challenges, which parity still exists. § 913.08, Fla....

...se charged is punishable by death or imprisonment for life," rule 3.350(a)(1), and that where "2 or more defendants are jointly tried ... the state shall be allowed as many challenges as are allowed to all of the defendants," rule 3.350(b). See also § 913.08, Fla....

...United States, 151 U.S. 396, 408, 14 S.Ct. 410, 38 L.Ed. 208 (1894)). Focusing only on criminal trials for purposes of the instant analysis, Florida law provides both cause and peremptory challenges to both sides involved in criminal proceedings. See §§ 913.03; 913.08, Fla....

...Each side is permitted ten peremptory challenges if the offense is punishable by death or life in prison, six if the offense is punishable by more than twelve months in prison (but not punishable by life in prison or death), and three for all other offenses. See § 913.08(1), Fla....

...has erroneously caused the loss of a peremptory challenge. Finally, the interpretation endorsed by the dissent would amplify the ability of one party to use peremptory challenges at the expense of the other in contravention of the plain language of section 913.08, which grants each party to a criminal proceeding the same number of peremptory challenges....

...[17] Such mistakes are made by *106 the best of judges in the fast-paced, contentious process of jury selection. And Busby corrected this error by using the tool the State provided him to immediately remedy such inevitable mistakes. He did so by using one of the ten statutory peremptory challenges given to him in section 913.08(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2000)....

...THE PURELY STATUTORY BASIS OF PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES Peremptory challenges in Florida are purely a statutory right; they have no state constitutional foundation. In criminal trials, peremptory challenges are granted equally to the State and to the defendant by section 913.08, Florida Statutes (2003)....

...However, traditionally no ground need be given for a peremptory challenge. Whereas challenges for cause are theoretically unlimited in number, that is not so with peremptories. Although the trial court has discretion to give additional peremptory challenges, they are specifically limited. § 913.08, Fla....

...His attack is two-pronged: (1) by attacking the trial judge's denial of his motion to suppress a confession without a specific finding on voluntariness, and (2) by attacking vel non (and as applied) the trial judge's ruling upholding the constitutionality of § 913.08(1)(a), F.S., and F.R.Cr.P....

...In his order denying the change of venue the trial judge pointed out that a total of eleven peremptory challenges were exercised by the defendants and there remained fifty jurors present and available when the jury had been selected. Each defendant was entitled to sixteen peremptory challenges under Section 913.08, Florida Statutes, F.S.A....

...4 So.2d at 105-06 (Bell, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Kopsho received all ten peremptory challenges that he was entitled to under the peremptory challenge statute. He used one of these peremptory challenges to strike Mullinax. See § 913.08(1)(a), Fla....

...After these veniremen had been excused by the court, there remained 62 prospective jurors in the box. The trial court allowed these veniremen to be examined by the state and by the defendant. After the defendant has exercised 6 of the 10 peremptory challenges allowed by law in a capital case, section 913.08, Florida Statutes 1951, F.S.A., the defendant renewed the motion for change of venue on the ground that of the few remaining veniremen in the box it appeared that 6 of them, at isolated times, had been patients of the decedent, Dr....

...ntence for sale of cocaine, in accordance with the provisions of section 924.34, Florida Statutes. As to the second issue, we affirm the trial court's ruling limiting appellant and the state to six peremptory challenges each. The statute applicable, section 913.08, provides in pertinent part: (1) The state and the defendant shall each be allowed the following number of peremptory challenges: *714 (a) Ten, if the offense charged is punishable by death or imprisonment for life; (b) Six, if the off...

...In Inmon, the court focused on the penalty attributable to the charged offense, rather than the possible penalties attributable to habitual offender enhancement. See Inmon, 383 So.2d at 1104. The third and fourth districts agreed with the rationale expressed in Inmon. See Smellie, 720 So.2d at 1132 ("We interpret section 913.08(1)(a)'s reference to the punishment for the `offense charged' to pertain to the statutory maximum for the charged offense without habitual offender enhancement.")....

...law shall not be used against the alternate juror. (e) Additional Challenges. The trial judge may exercise discretion to allow additional peremptory challenges when appropriate. Committee Notes 1968 Adoption. The suggested rule is a transcription of section 913.08, Florida Statutes, excluding subdivision (5), which is lifted from section 913.10(2), Florida Statutes, and included since the several provisions relate to peremptory challenges....

...NOTES [1] Goff's store was the first stop on his delivery route and Jowers always checked with a big clock Mr. Goff had on the outside of the store to see if he was on time. [2] There were numerous discrepancies between Mack's testimony and that of other witnesses. [3] F.S. Section 913.08 F.S.A....

...him or her. 17 There are two ways of eliminating a prospective juror from the final jury. Each side of the case is entitled to a limited number of peremptory strikes and can eliminate prospective jurors without any stated reason. Fla.Stat.Ann. Sec. 913.08 (West 1985); Fla.R.Crim.P....

...The court excused twenty-four prospective jurors for various reasons prior to beginning selection of a jury. A jury of six and one alternate was selected after the state and the defendants had exercised eight peremptory challenges. Each defendant was entitled to sixteen peremptory challenges under Section 913.08, Florida Statutes, F.S.A....

...Like its discharged predecessor, this jury, which tried and convicted the defendant, had no black members. [3] II. Our determination that the trial court's discharge of the initial jury was unauthorized is based upon our examination of the relationship between the defendant's peremptory challenge right guaranteed by Section 913.08, Florida Statutes (1983), [4] and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.350, [5] and the prohibition announced in State v....

...The parties stipulated in this court that the jury seated was all white, that two alternates were selected, that one of the alternates was black, and that neither of the alternates participated in the jury's deliberations. However, the record reflects that only one alternate was selected, apparently a black woman. [4] Section 913.08 provides in pertinent part: "(1) The State and the defendant shall each be allowed the following number of peremptory challenges: ......

...At trial the defendant contended that he should be allowed six peremptory challenges on each case but the trial judge allowed eight challenges and denied, over defendant's objections, challenges to aggregate twelve. On appeal the cases were again consolidated and the District Court held that appellant was entitled under F.S. § 913.08(2), F.S.A. to receive only the six peremptory challenges he received and that the two additional challenges he was allowed were within the discretion of the trial judge to grant or deny. In Meade v. State, supra, which discussed F.S. § 913.08 the court considering consolidated cases held, "* * * the number of challenges * * * would be the same as the total number assured by the statute if separate trials should be conducted." In view of the conflict of opinions involving the que...

...Under these circumstances the trial court did not abuse his discretion in consolidating the two cases and particularly when the record fails to show any objection by the defendant. Thus, having properly consolidated the causes, the trial judge may limit peremptory challenges to the number designated for single cases in F.S. § 913.08, F.S.A.; Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 1.350, Volume 33 Florida Statutes, F.S.A., but he has the discretion to grant such additional peremptory challenges as in his discretion seems just, within the limits that such challenges could have been cumulated for each indictment or count in separate cases....

...We find no abuse of discretion with regard to the issues raised in points two and four. As to issues one and three, while we find that neither alleged error requires reversal of Smellie's convictions, we write to briefly address each. As to the first issue, section 913.08(1), Florida Statutes (1997), provides in relevant part: *1132 The state and the defendant shall each be allowed the following number of peremptory challenges: (1) Ten, if the offense charged is punishable by death or imprisonment for life....

...defendant whose notice to habitualize was filed prior to jury selection ten peremptory challenges, while a defendant facing the same permissible life sentence whose notice is filed at a later stage of the proceeding would only have six. We interpret section 913.08(1)(a)'s reference to the punishment for the "offense charged" to pertain to the statutory maximum for the charged offense without habitual offender enhancement....

...She has the prosecutor announce the reasons for exclusion(s), and offers continuation of jury selection until the trial Court is satisfied. See also Metro-Miami Action Program, June 22, 1983, Sensitivity In The Criminal Justice System. Recommended Action: (A) Expand pool of eligible jurors, (B) Revise Florida Statute 913.08 by reducing the number of peremptory challenges presently allowed....

...(quoting Pentecost v. State, 545 So. 2d 861, 863 n.1 (Fla. 1989)). Here too, Blake’s appellate counsel could not have demonstrated reversible error on appeal. Blake’s trial counsel used only eight of the ten preemptory strikes provided for a capital case. See § 913.08(1)(a), Fla....

...Ten, if the offense charged is punishable by death or imprisonment for life. (2) All Other Felonies. Six, if the offense charged is a felony not punishable by death or imprisonment for life. (3) Misdemeanors. Three, if the offense charged is a misdemeanor. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.350. Section 913.08 of the Florida Statutes (2005) is in accord: 913.08....

...the offense charged is punishable by death or imprisonment for life; (b) Six, if the offense charged is punishable by imprisonment for more than 12 months but is not punishable by death or imprisonment for life; (c) Three, for all other offenses.... § 913.08(1), Fla....

...defendant whose notice to habitualize was filed prior to jury selection ten peremptory challenges, while a defendant facing the same permissible life sentence whose notice is filed at a later stage of the proceeding would only have six. We interpret section 913.08(1)(a)'s reference to the punishment for the "offense charged" to pertain to the statutory maximum for the charged offense without habitual offender enhancement....

...(quoting Pentecost v. State, 545 So. 2d 861, 863 n.1 (Fla. 1989)). Here too, Blake’s appellate counsel could not have demonstrated reversible error on appeal. Blake’s trial counsel used only eight of the ten preemptory strikes provided for a capital case. See § 913.08(1)(a), Fla....

...We find no reversible error as the two charges amount to separate crimes requiring different evidence and proof for conviction. See Taylor v. State, 138 Fla. 762 , 190 So. 262 (1939); Kearson v. State, 123 Fla. 324 , 166 So. 832 (1936); Evans v. State, Fla.App.1967, 197 So.2d 323 . The appellant has also argued that under § 913.08(2) Florida Statutes, F.S.A., he should have been allowed six peremptory challenges on voir dire for each offense charged in the information, i....

ten peremptory challenges provided for by section 913.08, Florida Statutes (2017), so that the trial

...between twelve and sixteen years old. [2] He challenges the lower court's determination that he was limited to six peremptory challenges during jury selection. He also challenges the introduction of collateral crime evidence. We affirm. Pursuant to section 913.08(1), Florida Statutes (2006), and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.350(a)(1)-(2), a criminal defendant is entitled to ten peremptory challenges where the "offense charged is punishable by death or imprisonment for life," but only si...

...Appellant was charged with three first-degree felonies and one second-degree felony, none of which carry life sentences. He faced life imprisonment only if the jury found him guilty as charged on all four counts and found that penetration occurred in the sexual battery counts. Section 913.08 and rule 3.350 link the number of peremptory challenges to the "offense charged," in the singular....

...MONACO, C.J., GRIFFIN, SAWAYA, PALMER, ORFINGER, TORPY, EVANDER, COHEN and JACOBUS, JJ., concur. *517 LAWSON, J., concurs and concurs specially with opinion in which SAWAYA and COHEN, JJ., concur. LAWSON, J., concurring specially. The majority properly resolves this case by applying the plain language of section 913.08, Florida Statutes, and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.350, which link the number of peremptory challenges to the "offense charged," in the singular....

...Apprendi has no bearing on the issue in this case. There is no constitutional entitlement to peremptory challenges. Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42, 57, 112 S.Ct. 2348, 120 L.Ed.2d 33 (1992). Thus, this case presents a pure question of statutory/rule construction, nothing more. The statute, section 913.08(1), Florida Statutes, specifies that the number of challenges is determined from the "offense charged," in the singular....

...reme Court issued its decision in Hurst v. Florida (Hurst v. Florida), 136 S.Ct. 616, 619 (2016). This Court ordered supplemental briefing to address that decision. This review follows. ANALYSIS Guilt Phase Peremptory Challenges Jackson alleges that section 913.08, Florida Statutes (2007), which governs peremptory challenges during voir dire, is both facially unconstitutional and unconstitutional as applied to his case....

...considered creatures of statute. United States v. Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304, 311 , 120 S.Ct. 774 , 145 L.Ed.2d 792 (2000); Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81, 88 , 108 S.Ct. 2273 , 101 L.Ed.2d 80 (1988); Busby v. State, 894 So.2d 88, 98 (Fla. 2004). Section 913.08 grants ten peremptory challenges to criminal defendants charged with capital crimes, six peremptory challenges to defendants charged with lesser offenses punishable by imprisonment longer than twelve months, and three peremptory challenges to defendants facing all other charges....

...P. 3.350(e); Parker v. State, 456 So.2d 436, 442 (Fla. 1984). Thus, there is a right under Florida law to a certain number of peremptory challenges, but there is no right or entitlement to additional peremptory challenges beyond those established in section 913.08....

...Statutes that abridge a right that is not fundamental or adversely impact a class that is not considered suspect are only unconstitutional if there is no rational relationship between the statute and a legitimate state interest, E.g., Lite v. State, 617 So.2d 1058 , 1060 n.2 (Fla. 1993). Section 913.08 is rationally related to a legitimate interest in providing fair and efficient trials....

...Although “death is different,” criminal' defendants are not generally considered a suspect class, not even those sentenced to death. See Crump v. State, 654 So.2d 545, 547 (Fla. 1995); Gov’t of Virgin Islands v. Hodge, 359 F.3d 312 , 326 (3d Cir. 2004). Finally, Jackson has insufficiently briefed his claim that section 913.08 violates his right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. See Heath v. State, 3 So.3d 1017 , 1029 n.8 (Fla. 2009) (“Vague and conclusory allegations on appeal are insufficient to warrant relief.”). Therefore, we reject his facial constitutional challenge to section 913.08. Jackson also alleges that section 913.08 is unconstitutional as applied to him because the trial court erroneously denied several cause challenges, forcing him to exercise his peremptory challenges, and denied his motion for additional peremptory challenges....

...de that the trial court abused its discretion when it declined to grant additional peremptory challenges, even acknowledging the difficulties encountered in seating this jury. 4 Therefore, Jackson’s as-applied challenge to the constitutionality of section 913.08 also fails....

...The defendant was subsequently convicted and sentenced to fourteen years as an habitual offender on Count I and six years on Count II. On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying him ten peremptory challenges as prescribed by Section 913.08(1), Florida Statutes (1997). We disagree. Section 913.08(1) provides: (1) The state and the defendant shall each be provided with the following number of peremptory challenges: (a) Ten, if the offense charged is punishable by death or imprisonment for life; (b) Six, if the offense charged is...

...State, 720 So.2d at 1132 ; Inmon v. State, 383 So.2d at 1103 . Section 775.084(3)(b) allows the State to file its notice of intent to seek an habitual offender sentence enhancement before or after jury selection. If we were to adopt the defendant’s construction of Section 913.08(1), we would achieve “the incongruous result of allowing a defendant whose notice to habitualize was filed prior to jury selection ten peremptory challenges, while a defendant facing the same permissible life sentence whose notice is...

...isdemeanors. The cases were consolidated for trial in the county judge’s court of Alachua County and defendant was convicted of both charges. On appeal to the circuit court the convictions were affirmed. Certiorari is sought to review that action. Section 913.08, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., provides that the state and the defendant shall each be allowed three peremptory challenges if the offense charged is a misdemeanor....

...he defendant received the six peremptory challenges to which he was entitled under the statute, plus two additional challenges, which we deem to he within the trial court’s discretion to grant or deny. The statute to which we refer is Fla. Stats., § 913.08, F.S.A. It provides: “913.08 Number of peremptory challenges The state and the defendant shall each be allowed the following number of peremptory challenges: “(1) Ten, if the offense charged is punishable by death or imprisonment for life; “(2) Six, if the offense cha...

...ovision that the defendant shall be allowed ten of such challenges if the offense charged is punishable by death or life imprisonment and that if two or more defendants are jointly tried, each of them shall be allowed ten peremptory challenges. Sec. 913.08, Florida Statutes 1953, and F.S.A....

In Meade v. State, supra, which discussed F.S. § 913.08 the court consider*225ing consolidated cases held

...United States, 561 U.S. 358, 395 n.31 (2010))). “[I]n Florida, the use of peremptory challenges in criminal trials is a statutory creation.” Deviney v. State, 322 So. 3d 563, 584 (Fla. 2021) (Lawson, J., concurring in part and concurring in result); see § 913.08, Fla....