Salazar v. State

564 So. 2d 1245, 1990 WL 111966
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 7, 1990·No. 89-1221·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

564 So.2d 1245 (1990)

Humberto Avila SALAZAR, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 89-1221.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

August 7, 1990.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Valerie Jonas, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Monique T. Befeler, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before FERGUSON, JORGENSON and GODERICH, JJ.

*1246 CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Humberto Salazar, appeals from a judgment of conviction and sentence entered against him for robbery based on an adverse jury verdict. We reverse and remand for a new trial.

The trial court erred in refusing to excuse for cause prospective juror Evans. During voir dire, Ms. Evans was asked whether the fact that her elderly mother had recently been raped and robbed would affect her ability to fairly decide the defendant's case. Ms. Evans stated: "Strange thing, I would hope not. I would hope I could be fair but I guess there is always that doubt." This statement reiterated the reasonable doubt existing in this juror's state of mind. Therefore, as the state properly concedes, the trial court erred in failing to excuse Ms. Evans for cause where a reasonable doubt existed as to her ability to be impartial. See Imbimbo v. State, 555 So.2d 954 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Price v. State, 538 So.2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Smith v. State, 516 So.2d 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).

This error harmed the defendant since (1) he was forced to exercise a peremptory challenge against Ms. Evans when she should have been excused for cause; (2) he exhausted all of his allotted peremptory challenges; and (3) he was denied additional peremptory challenges. See Hill v. State, 477 So.2d 553, 556 (Fla. 1985); Smith v. State, 516 So.2d 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Since this point is dispositive, we do not need to reach defendant's remaining point on appeal. For these reasons, the final judgment of conviction and sentence under review is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Salazar v. State, 564 So. 2d 1245, 1990 WL 111966 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

564 So. 2d 1245 (Salazar v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Peter Sciallo v. the State of Florida
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2024
Smith v. State
28 So. 3d 838 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2009)
Segura v. State
921 So. 2d 765 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)
Wilkins v. State
607 So. 2d 500 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Gilbert v. State
593 So. 2d 597 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
White v. State
579 So. 2d 784 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Mann v. State
571 So. 2d 551 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
Garcia v. State
570 So. 2d 1082 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
Blye v. State
566 So. 2d 877 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
City of Live Oak v. Townsend
567 So. 2d 926 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)