Imbimbo v. State

555 So. 2d 954, 1990 WL 4096
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJanuary 24, 1990
Docket87-3390
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 555 So. 2d 954 (Imbimbo 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
Imbimbo v. State, 555 So. 2d 954, 1990 WL 4096 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Opinion

555 So.2d 954 (1990)

Raffaele IMBIMBO, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 87-3390.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

January 24, 1990.

*955 Peter Birch of Birch and Murrell, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Celia A. Terenzio and Don M. Rogers, Asst. Attys. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

LETTS, Judge.

During voir dire, a juror admitted that she "probably" would be prejudiced but "probably" could follow the judge's instructions. The defendant's challenge for cause was denied. We reverse.

We see no reason to elaborate on the colloquy alluded to above, other than to reiterate that reasonable doubt as a juror's state of mind should result in him or her being excused, Longshore v. Fronrath Chevrolet, Inc., 527 So.2d 922, 923 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), and write primarily to explain why the error was not harmless. It is true that the defendant used a peremptory challenge to excuse the prejudiced juror, but he also used up all his peremptory challenges and his request for additional challenges was denied. As we said in Longshore v. Fronrath Chevrolet, Inc.:

If, because of an erroneous denial of a challenge for cause, a party is forced to exhaust his or her peremptory challenges and, subsequently makes a request for additional peremptory challenges which is denied ... an appellate court will reverse and grant a new trial... .

Id. at 923.

We also note, and at oral argument both counsel agreed, that the trial court's "Judgment, Sentence and Order Placing Defendant on Probation ..." dated January 6, 1988, is in error. The jury clearly found appellant not guilty of leaving the scene of an accident involving personal injury.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial on the two counts remaining.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

POLEN, J., and KANAREK, PAUL B., Associate Judge, concur.

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

Related

FOUR WOOD CONSULTING, LLC. v. Fyne
981 So. 2d 2 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)
Bell v. Greissman
902 So. 2d 846 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)
Weinstein Design Group, Inc. v. Fielder
884 So. 2d 990 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)
Crawford v. State
805 So. 2d 997 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
Huber v. State
669 So. 2d 1079 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
Williams v. State
638 So. 2d 976 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
Montozzi v. State
633 So. 2d 563 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
Street v. State
592 So. 2d 369 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Mann v. State
571 So. 2d 551 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
Salazar v. State
564 So. 2d 1245 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
555 So. 2d 954, 1990 WL 4096, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/imbimbo-v-state-fladistctapp-1990.