Luckett v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Luckett v. State

590 So. 2d 955, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 11514, 1991 WL 268712

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 19, 1991·No. No. 91-485·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

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

PER CURIAM.

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.

Luckett v. State, 590 So. 2d 955, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 11514, 1991 WL 268712 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

590 So. 2d 955 (Luckett v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related