Zitnick v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Zitnick v. State

576 So. 2d 1381, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 3055, 1991 WL 50196

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 9, 1991

DocketNo. 90-701

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 576 So. 2d 1381 (Zitnick 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

Zitnick v. State, 576 So. 2d 1381, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 3055, 1991 WL 50196 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

The State, through its confession of error filed in this cause, correctly agrees that the defendant is entitled to a new trial based upon the fact that the trial court limited voir dire to fifteen minutes despite the fact that there were nineteen potential jurors, that the defendant was charged with trafficking in 400 grams or more of cocaine, and that after the expiration of the fifteen-minute period, defense counsel indicated that he needed additional time to ask the jurors about the use of confidential informants, police undercover officers, and his sole defense of entrapment. The appellant’s request for additional time was denied by the court. Clearly, as the State concedes, the foregoing constitutes reversi[1382]*1382ble error. See James v. State, 575 So.2d 335 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) and Pineda v. State, 571 So.2d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).

Having determined that the defendant is entitled to a new trial for the foregoing reason, we do not reach the remaining points raised by appellant in this appeal.

Reversed and remanded.

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

CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

The State, through its confession of error filed in this cause, correctly agrees that the defendant is entitled to a new trial based upon the fact that the trial court limited voir dire to fifteen minutes despite the fact that there were nineteen potential jurors, that the defendant was charged with trafficking in 400 grams or more of cocaine, and that after the expiration of the fifteen-minute period, defense counsel indicated that he needed additional time to ask the jurors about the use of confidential informants, police undercover officers, and his sole defense of entrapment. The appellant’s request for additional time was denied by the court. Clearly, as the State concedes, the foregoing constitutes reversi[1382]*1382ble error. See James v. State, 575 So.2d 335 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) and Pineda v. State, 571 So.2d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).

Having determined that the defendant is entitled to a new trial for the foregoing reason, we do not reach the remaining points raised by appellant in this appeal.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

576 So. 2d 1381, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 3055, 1991 WL 50196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zitnick-v-state-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack