State v. Frey

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Frey

685 So. 2d 967, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 13382, 1996 WL 734859

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 26, 1996

DocketNo. 96-2416

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 685 So. 2d 967 (State v. Frey) 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

State v. Frey, 685 So. 2d 967, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 13382, 1996 WL 734859 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The State seeks certiorari review of an order of the circuit court, appellate division, reversing the defendant’s conviction and sentence and granting a new trial. We have jurisdiction, pursuant to Article V, section 4(b)(3), Florida Constitution, and Rule 9.030(b)(2)(B), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, and grant the petition.

In the case below, the circuit court, sitting in its appellate capacity, found that the trial court had committed reversible error when it denied the defendant’s challenge for cause of an allegedly objectionable juror, forced the defendant to exhaust his three allotted peremptory challenges, and subsequently denied the defendant’s request for additional per[968]*968emptory challenges. After carefully considering the record and argument of counsel, we find that, even if the issue was preserved for appellate review, the juror in question was sufficiently rehabilitated by the trial court, and that therefore, the trial court’s denial of the challenge for cause was well within its discretion. Cook v. State, 542 So.2d 964, 969 (Fla.1989).

Accordingly, we grant the petition, vacate the circuit court’s order granting a new trial, and reinstate the trial court’s judgment of conviction and sentence.

Petition granted; order vacated; and judgment reinstated.

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

PER CURIAM.

The State seeks certiorari review of an order of the circuit court, appellate division, reversing the defendant’s conviction and sentence and granting a new trial. We have jurisdiction, pursuant to Article V, section 4(b)(3), Florida Constitution, and Rule 9.030(b)(2)(B), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, and grant the petition.

In the case below, the circuit court, sitting in its appellate capacity, found that the trial court had committed reversible error when it denied the defendant’s challenge for cause of an allegedly objectionable juror, forced the defendant to exhaust his three allotted peremptory challenges, and subsequently denied the defendant’s request for additional per[968]*968emptory challenges. After carefully considering the record and argument of counsel, we find that, even if the issue was preserved for appellate review, the juror in question was sufficiently rehabilitated by the trial court, and that therefore, the trial court’s denial of the challenge for cause was well within its discretion. Cook v. State, 542 So.2d 964, 969 (Fla.1989).

Accordingly, we grant the petition, vacate the circuit court’s order granting a new trial, and reinstate the trial court’s judgment of conviction and sentence.

Petition granted; order vacated; and judgment reinstated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

685 So. 2d 967, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 13382, 1996 WL 734859, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-frey-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack