Francis v. State

579 So. 2d 286, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 4381, 1991 WL 72021
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 7, 1991·No. No. 90-1693·Published·Cited by 3 cases

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

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

579 So. 2d 286 (Francis v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Miller v. State
785 So. 2d 662 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
Fleckinger v. State
642 So. 2d 35 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
Honorat v. Genova
579 So. 2d 286 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)