Zanders v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Zanders v. State

698 So. 2d 282, 1997 WL 362837

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 2, 1997

DocketNo. 96-2378

StatusPublished

This text of 698 So. 2d 282 (Zanders 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

Zanders v. State, 698 So. 2d 282, 1997 WL 362837 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Frederich Zanders (“defendant”), appeals his conviction contending that the trial court failed to determine whether he knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to be present at a sidebar conference where peremptory challenges were exercised. We agree and reverse.

Immediately after voir dire was completed, defense counsel asked for a moment, and there was a pause in the record. During this gap in the record, jury selection occurred at a sidebar conference at which defense counsel exercised several peremptory challenges. The jury was then seated when the parties went back on the record.

After reviewing the transcripts of the proceeding, the record does not reflect whether the defendant waived his right to be present at the sidebar conference. Moreover, the trial court did not inquire into the defendant’s waiver, or his ratification of the jurors challenged by his attorney.

The defendant has a constitutional right to be present at all crucial stages of trial where his absence might compromise the fairness of the proceedings. See Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975); Rose v. State, 617 So.2d 291 (Fla.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 903, 114 S.Ct. 279, 126 L.Ed.2d 230 (1993). Because the record is void of any evidentiary showing that the defendant had an opportunity to discuss the jury selection procedure with his attorney, we reverse and remand for a new trial. See Turner v. State, 530 So.2d 45 (Fla.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1040, 109 S.Ct. 1175, 103 L.Ed.2d 237 (1989); Francis v. State, 413 So.2d 1175 (Fla.1982). The second issue raised on appeal is without merit.

Reversed and remanded for new trial.

GERSTEN and GREEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Frederich Zanders (“defendant”), appeals his conviction contending that the trial court failed to determine whether he knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to be present at a sidebar conference where peremptory challenges were exercised. We agree and reverse.

Immediately after voir dire was completed, defense counsel asked for a moment, and there was a pause in the record. During this gap in the record, jury selection occurred at a sidebar conference at which defense counsel exercised several peremptory challenges. The jury was then seated when the parties went back on the record.

After reviewing the transcripts of the proceeding, the record does not reflect whether the defendant waived his right to be present at the sidebar conference. Moreover, the trial court did not inquire into the defendant’s waiver, or his ratification of the jurors challenged by his attorney.

The defendant has a constitutional right to be present at all crucial stages of trial where his absence might compromise the fairness of the proceedings. See Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975); Rose v. State, 617 So.2d 291 (Fla.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 903, 114 S.Ct. 279, 126 L.Ed.2d 230 (1993). Because the record is void of any evidentiary showing that the defendant had an opportunity to discuss the jury selection procedure with his attorney, we reverse and remand for a new trial. See Turner v. State, 530 So.2d 45 (Fla.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1040, 109 S.Ct. 1175, 103 L.Ed.2d 237 (1989); Francis v. State, 413 So.2d 1175 (Fla.1982). The second issue raised on appeal is without merit.

Reversed and remanded for new trial.

GERSTEN and GREEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

698 So. 2d 282, 1997 WL 362837, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zanders-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack