EDWARD O. DUEITT, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court affirmed a conviction for first-degree murder, holding that the defendant waived his right to raise an issue of juror misconduct by failing to bring it to the trial court's attention promptly.
No, the trial court was not required to conduct a hearing. The defendant waived the right to raise the issue of juror misconduct because neither he nor his counsel brought the matter to the court's attention promptly and timely.
[1] A defendant waives the right to raise an issue of juror misconduct after a verdict if the defendant or counsel knew of the misconduct and failed to promptly bring it to t…
[2] A trial court is not required to conduct a hearing on alleged juror misconduct when the defendant and counsel delayed in reporting the issue until after the jury reached…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Here, neither the defendant nor his counsel promptly and timely brought the matter of possible juror misconduct to the attention of the trial court; rather, they waited until after the matter had been submitted to and decided by the jury.”
Establishes the core factual basis for the court's decision regarding waiver.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring a murder trial, defense counsel learned that a juror was an employee of the county and had worked on repairs to the defendant's cell, which wer…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Waiver Of Issues cases and more on FLexlaw
ZEHMER, Judge.
Defendant below, Edward Dueitt, appeals his conviction of first degree murder, contending that the trial court should have granted his motion for new trial on grounds of juror misconduct. During the second day of the three-day trial, defense counsel discovered that a member of the jury was an employee of Washington County and had worked on repairs to defendant’s cell made necessary by defendant’s attempted escape while being held on the murder charge. Defense counsel represents that he obtained information that defendant and the juror knew each other and that the juror may have known that defendant attempted to escape. Defense counsel did not promptly bring this information to the attention of the trial judge, and the case proceeded to a jury verdict of guilty. In the motion for new trial, defendant alleged, in essence, that the juror had not disclosed his acquaintance with defendant during voir dire, and further, that he may have told the other jurors of defendant’s attempted escape, thus prejudicing defendant’s right to a fair trial. The trial court denied the motion.
Defendant contends that the trial court should have conducted a hearing to determine whether the juror’s alleged knowledge of the attempted escape was sufficiently prejudicial to defeat defendant’s right to a fair trial, citing Robinson v. State, 438 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), and Alfonso v. State, 443 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). We hold, however, that such an inquiry was not necessary under the circumstances of this case. Here, neither the defendant nor his counsel promptly and timely brought the matter of possible juror misconduct to the attention of the trial court; rather, they waited until after the matter had been submitted to and decided by the jury. Defendant, having elected to trust this jury rather than timely raising the issue before additional time was consumed in the trial, will not be heard to raise the issue after conclusion of the trial and announcement of the verdict. Snook v. State, 478 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).
AFFIRMED.
SHIVERS and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rooney v. Lawrence E. Hannon, M.D., P.A., 732 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…ney World Co. v. Althouse, 427 So. 2d 1135, 1136 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) (involving improper contact between a witness and a juror). Analogous trial situations require a timely objection to preserve an issue for a motion for new trial. Dueitt v. State, 491 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), is a case involving misconduct of a juror. A defendant and a prospective juror knew each other, but the juror did not disclose the acquaintance during voir dire. The first district held that by remaining silent while knowing tha…
Authorities Cited
- Robinson v. State, 438 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Snook v. State, 478 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Raymundo Alfonso v. State, 443 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)