Reese v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Reese v. State

739 So. 2d 120, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 8675, 1999 WL 447441

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 30, 1999

DocketNo. 98-1331

StatusPublished

This text of 739 So. 2d 120 (Reese 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

Reese v. State, 739 So. 2d 120, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 8675, 1999 WL 447441 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from judgments of conviction and sentences for armed robbery, armed carjacking, and resisting an officer without violence. We reverse, as the trial court clearly erred when it denied the defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict.

During jury deliberations, a Special Agent of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement appeared in court to arrest a juror for mortgage fraud and grand theft. The court, the State Attorney, defense counsel, and the juror were aware of the imminent arrest. The juror was in a state of panic. Nevertheless, over defendant’s¹ objection and motion for mistrial, jury deliberations continued with the soon-to-be-arrested juror. The jury returned a verdict of guilty; the juror was arrested. The defendant moved to set the verdict aside. After considering the motion for [121]*121over two months, and despite having been provided a copy of the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Lowrey v. State, 705 So.2d 1367 (Fla.1998), the trial court denied the motion to set aside the verdict and sentenced defendant.

The supreme court could not have been any clearer when it held that “the very foundation of our criminal justice process is compromised when a juror who is under criminal prosecution serves on a case that is being prosecuted by the same state attorney’s office that is prosecuting the juror.” Lowrey, 705 So.2d at 1369-70. See also § 40.013, Fla. Stat. (1997) (“No person who is under prosecution for any crime ... shall be qualified to serve as a juror.”). When, as here, a juror is being prosecuted by the same State Attorney’s office that is prosecuting the defendant being tried, there exists an inherent presumption of prejudice. Id.

In sum, the trial court erred when it denied the motion for mistrial and the motion to set aside the verdict. Under Lowrey, a new trial is required.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from judgments of conviction and sentences for armed robbery, armed carjacking, and resisting an officer without violence. We reverse, as the trial court clearly erred when it denied the defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict.

During jury deliberations, a Special Agent of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement appeared in court to arrest a juror for mortgage fraud and grand theft. The court, the State Attorney, defense counsel, and the juror were aware of the imminent arrest. The juror was in a state of panic. Nevertheless, over defendant’s¹ objection and motion for mistrial, jury deliberations continued with the soon-to-be-arrested juror. The jury returned a verdict of guilty; the juror was arrested. The defendant moved to set the verdict aside. After considering the motion for [121]*121over two months, and despite having been provided a copy of the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Lowrey v. State, 705 So.2d 1367 (Fla.1998), the trial court denied the motion to set aside the verdict and sentenced defendant.

The supreme court could not have been any clearer when it held that “the very foundation of our criminal justice process is compromised when a juror who is under criminal prosecution serves on a case that is being prosecuted by the same state attorney’s office that is prosecuting the juror.” Lowrey, 705 So.2d at 1369-70. See also § 40.013, Fla. Stat. (1997) (“No person who is under prosecution for any crime ... shall be qualified to serve as a juror.”). When, as here, a juror is being prosecuted by the same State Attorney’s office that is prosecuting the defendant being tried, there exists an inherent presumption of prejudice. Id.

In sum, the trial court erred when it denied the motion for mistrial and the motion to set aside the verdict. Under Lowrey, a new trial is required.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

739 So. 2d 120, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 8675, 1999 WL 447441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reese-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack