Matthews v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Matthews v. State

451 So. 2d 973, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13661

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 13, 1984

DocketNo. 83-429

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 451 So. 2d 973 (Matthews 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

Matthews v. State, 451 So. 2d 973, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13661 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial on the authority of Grant v. State, 429 So.2d 758 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).

Prior to the jury being sworn, the appellant attempted to exercise one of his remaining preemptory challenges to the jury panel. The trial court refused to entertain the appellant’s objection at that time and directed that the jury be sworn. After the jury was sworn and the remaining prospective jurors released, the trial court acknowledged on the record the appellant’s attempt to exercise a preemptory challenge prior to the jury being sworn. At the same time the trial judge stated that under his practice jury challenges were not permitted once a juror had been questioned and accepted, even though that juror had not been sworn as a member of a complete jury. The trial court also acknowledged that the appellant had objected to such procedure.

We specifically disapproved of such a jury selection procedure in Grant. Upon review of the record we also are unable to conclude that the error here was harmless. Cf. Jones v. State, 332 So.2d 615 (Fla.1976). In fairness to the trial court, we acknowledge that Grant was decided after the trial of the present case.

ANSTEAD, C.J., and DOWNEY and DELL, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial on the authority of Grant v. State, 429 So.2d 758 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).

Prior to the jury being sworn, the appellant attempted to exercise one of his remaining preemptory challenges to the jury panel. The trial court refused to entertain the appellant’s objection at that time and directed that the jury be sworn. After the jury was sworn and the remaining prospective jurors released, the trial court acknowledged on the record the appellant’s attempt to exercise a preemptory challenge prior to the jury being sworn. At the same time the trial judge stated that under his practice jury challenges were not permitted once a juror had been questioned and accepted, even though that juror had not been sworn as a member of a complete jury. The trial court also acknowledged that the appellant had objected to such procedure.

We specifically disapproved of such a jury selection procedure in Grant. Upon review of the record we also are unable to conclude that the error here was harmless. Cf. Jones v. State, 332 So.2d 615 (Fla.1976). In fairness to the trial court, we acknowledge that Grant was decided after the trial of the present case.

ANSTEAD, C.J., and DOWNEY and DELL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

451 So. 2d 973, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matthews-v-state-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack