Moncur v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Moncur v. State

262 So. 2d 688, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6777

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 31, 1972

DocketNo. 71-516

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 262 So. 2d 688 (Moncur 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

Moncur v. State, 262 So. 2d 688, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6777 (Fla. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

MANN, Judge.

Moncur was the third person involved in this robbery. The first was acquitted at an earlier trial. The second entered a guilty plea, which the trial judge received in the presence of the venire from which Moncur’s jury was to be selected. The judge spoke critically of the jury which had acquitted the first participant. Immediately after the second participant’s plea was received, Moncur’s lawyer moved for continuance until a new venire could be summoned. This motion plainily should have been granted. The state responds that the prejudicial remarks were harmless since the jurors in Moncur’s case had not been sworn. This argument is without merit. Moncur is entitled to a fair trial before an impartial jury, excluding even those whose minds have been tainted by news[689]*689paper publicity long before they have been called, much less sworn.

A new trial is required by Hamilton v. State, Fla.App.3d 1959, 109 So.2d 422; Robinson v. State, Fla.App.3d 1964, 161 So.2d 578; Singer v. State, Fla.1959, 109 So.2d 7. See, generally, Sheppard v. Maxwell, 1966, 384 U.S. 333, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 16 L.Ed.2d 600.

LILES, A. C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.

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

MANN, Judge.

Moncur was the third person involved in this robbery. The first was acquitted at an earlier trial. The second entered a guilty plea, which the trial judge received in the presence of the venire from which Moncur’s jury was to be selected. The judge spoke critically of the jury which had acquitted the first participant. Immediately after the second participant’s plea was received, Moncur’s lawyer moved for continuance until a new venire could be summoned. This motion plainily should have been granted. The state responds that the prejudicial remarks were harmless since the jurors in Moncur’s case had not been sworn. This argument is without merit. Moncur is entitled to a fair trial before an impartial jury, excluding even those whose minds have been tainted by news[689]*689paper publicity long before they have been called, much less sworn.

A new trial is required by Hamilton v. State, Fla.App.3d 1959, 109 So.2d 422; Robinson v. State, Fla.App.3d 1964, 161 So.2d 578; Singer v. State, Fla.1959, 109 So.2d 7. See, generally, Sheppard v. Maxwell, 1966, 384 U.S. 333, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 16 L.Ed.2d 600.

LILES, A. C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 So. 2d 688, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6777, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moncur-v-state-fladistctapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack