Michael v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Michael v. State

796 So. 2d 1292, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 15265, 2001 WL 1335412

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 31, 2001

DocketNo. 3D01-403

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 796 So. 2d 1292 (Michael 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

Michael v. State, 796 So. 2d 1292, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 15265, 2001 WL 1335412 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

[1293]*1293 CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

Based on the state’s confession of error, we reverse defendant’s conviction and remand for a new trial. As the state correctly states, defendant’s cause challenge to the objectionable juror should have been granted. The juror expressed that he hoped he could be fair, but that he could not be sure. Uncertainty as to a venireperson’s impartiality must be resolved in favor of the party raising the challenge. James v. State, 731 So.2d 781, 782 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Montozzi v. State, 633 So.2d 563 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); see Martinez v. State, 795 So.2d 279 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). Defendant has demonstrated reversible error. See Trotter v. State, 576 So.2d 691, 693 (Fla.1990).

In view of defendant’s short sentence, we direct the trial court to conduct the new trial forthwith.

Reversed and remanded.

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

[1293]*1293 CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

Based on the state’s confession of error, we reverse defendant’s conviction and remand for a new trial. As the state correctly states, defendant’s cause challenge to the objectionable juror should have been granted. The juror expressed that he hoped he could be fair, but that he could not be sure. Uncertainty as to a venireperson’s impartiality must be resolved in favor of the party raising the challenge. James v. State, 731 So.2d 781, 782 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Montozzi v. State, 633 So.2d 563 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); see Martinez v. State, 795 So.2d 279 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). Defendant has demonstrated reversible error. See Trotter v. State, 576 So.2d 691, 693 (Fla.1990).

In view of defendant’s short sentence, we direct the trial court to conduct the new trial forthwith.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

796 So. 2d 1292, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 15265, 2001 WL 1335412, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack