Luckett v. State
This text of 590 So. 2d 955 (Luckett 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.
Opinion
There was no error or abuse of discretion in the trial court’s replacement of a juror, who apparently did not arrive at a session on time, with a duly-chosen alternate. See United States v. Makres, 598 F.2d 1072 (7th Cir.1979); United States v. Domenech, 476 F.2d 1229 (2d Cir.1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 840, 94 S.Ct. 95, 38 L.Ed.2d 77 (1973). See generally Orosz v. State, 389 So.2d 1199, 1200 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) (“The conduct of jurors is the responsibility of the court and the court is allowed discretion in dealing with any problems that arise.”).
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
590 So. 2d 955, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 11514, 1991 WL 268712, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/luckett-v-state-fladistctapp-1991.