From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kidd v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Apr 2, 1986
486 So. 2d 41 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

Summary

holding that "[a]n attorney is ‘not required to pursue a completely useless course when the judge had announced in advance that it would be fruitless,’ " where the state contended "that the defense motion was a request to challenge the jurors for cause, not a request to exercise the remaining peremptory challenges," and "the trial court had already stated that no juror could be challenged at that point because all jurors had already been accepted by the state and the defense"

Summary of this case from Sanchez v. GEICO Indem. Co.

Opinion

No. 85-1065.

April 2, 1986.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Pasco County, W. Lowell Bray, Jr., J.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and William H. Pasch, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Gary O. Welch, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.


Defendant appeals his convictions and sentences for sexual battery, kidnapping, and robbery. We reverse.

Defendant claims that the trial court erred in not allowing the exercise of peremptory challenges of jurors at a time when a full jury panel had been accepted but not yet sworn. We agree that a juror can be challenged up until the time he is sworn. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.310; Jackson v. State, 464 So.2d 1181 (Fla. 1985).

The state contends that the defense motion was a request to challenge the jurors for cause, not a request to exercise the remaining peremptory challenges. However, the trial court had already stated that no juror could be challenged at that point because all jurors had already been accepted by the state and the defense. An attorney is "not required to pursue a completely useless course when the judge had announced in advance that it would be fruitless." Bailey v. State, 224 So.2d 296, 297 (Fla. 1969). See also Bell v. State, 338 So.2d 1328, 1329 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). Here, the defense attorney was not required to attempt to exercise any remaining peremptory challenges when the trial court had already stated that no such challenges would be allowed.

Our disposition of defendant's first issue on appeal makes the remaining issues moot.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

RYDER, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and LEHAN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Kidd v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Apr 2, 1986
486 So. 2d 41 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

holding that "[a]n attorney is ‘not required to pursue a completely useless course when the judge had announced in advance that it would be fruitless,’ " where the state contended "that the defense motion was a request to challenge the jurors for cause, not a request to exercise the remaining peremptory challenges," and "the trial court had already stated that no juror could be challenged at that point because all jurors had already been accepted by the state and the defense"

Summary of this case from Sanchez v. GEICO Indem. Co.
Case details for

Kidd v. State

Case Details

Full title:THOMAS KIDD, A/K/A CHARLES GLOBE, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Apr 2, 1986

Citations

486 So. 2d 41 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

Citing Cases

Shelby v. State

The case law of this state and the clear language of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.310 are explicit in…

Sanchez v. GEICO Indem. Co.

v. State , 224 So. 2d 296, 297 (Fla. 1969) (holding that in view of the trial court's announced intention,…