Francis v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Francis v. State

579 So. 2d 286, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 4381, 1991 WL 72021

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 7, 1991

DocketNo. 90-1693

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 579 So. 2d 286 (Francis v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Francis v. State, 579 So. 2d 286, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 4381, 1991 WL 72021 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Albert Francis appeals from judgments of conviction for two counts of aggravated assault with a firearm. During voir dire examination of prospective jurors, the trial court denied defense counsel an opportunity to question jurors individually. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.300(b) permits “[t]he court [to] examine each prospective juror individually or [to] examine the prospective jurors collectively.” However, the rule also states that “[t]he right of the parties to conduct an examination of each juror orally shall be preserved.” In Gosha v. State, 534 So.2d 912 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), this court held that imposition of severe time constraints on counsel’s voir dire examination of each prospective juror is, as a matter of law, unreasonable and an abuse of discretion. That holding compels reversal where, as here, the trial court totally precludes individual examination of jurors. See Pineda v. State, 571 So.2d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Albert Francis appeals from judgments of conviction for two counts of aggravated assault with a firearm. During voir dire examination of prospective jurors, the trial court denied defense counsel an opportunity to question jurors individually. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.300(b) permits “[t]he court [to] examine each prospective juror individually or [to] examine the prospective jurors collectively.” However, the rule also states that “[t]he right of the parties to conduct an examination of each juror orally shall be preserved.” In Gosha v. State, 534 So.2d 912 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), this court held that imposition of severe time constraints on counsel’s voir dire examination of each prospective juror is, as a matter of law, unreasonable and an abuse of discretion. That holding compels reversal where, as here, the trial court totally precludes individual examination of jurors. See Pineda v. State, 571 So.2d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

579 So. 2d 286, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 4381, 1991 WL 72021, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/francis-v-state-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack