Terry v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Terry v. State

651 So. 2d 756, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 2128, 1995 WL 87347

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 6, 1995

DocketNo. 93-2470

StatusPublished

This text of 651 So. 2d 756 (Terry 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

Terry v. State, 651 So. 2d 756, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 2128, 1995 WL 87347 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court erred in not sustaining the challenge for cause to juror Touchton, an eight-year employee of a witness whose warehouse the jury found appellants had broken into. On voir dire, Mr. Touchton evinced prior knowledge of the crime. When asked whether his connection with the warehouse owner “would give [him] any difficulty in sitting on this case to determine a fair and impartial verdict,” Mr. Touchton answered, “It shouldn’t. I don’t much believe it will.” He did not unequivocally state, the trial court did not explicitly find, and the record does not otherwise establish that he was able to “render a verdict on the evidence and law given at the trial free of the influence of his opinions and prejudices.” Singer v. State, 109 So.2d 7, 24 (Fla.1959); Tenon v. State, 545 So.2d 382 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); see Lusk v. State, 446 So.2d 1038 (Fla.1984).

REVERSED.

MINER, WEBSTER and BENTON, JJ, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The trial court erred in not sustaining the challenge for cause to juror Touchton, an eight-year employee of a witness whose warehouse the jury found appellants had broken into. On voir dire, Mr. Touchton evinced prior knowledge of the crime. When asked whether his connection with the warehouse owner “would give [him] any difficulty in sitting on this case to determine a fair and impartial verdict,” Mr. Touchton answered, “It shouldn’t. I don’t much believe it will.” He did not unequivocally state, the trial court did not explicitly find, and the record does not otherwise establish that he was able to “render a verdict on the evidence and law given at the trial free of the influence of his opinions and prejudices.” Singer v. State, 109 So.2d 7, 24 (Fla.1959); Tenon v. State, 545 So.2d 382 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); see Lusk v. State, 446 So.2d 1038 (Fla.1984).

REVERSED.

MINER, WEBSTER and BENTON, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

651 So. 2d 756, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 2128, 1995 WL 87347, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/terry-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack