ELECK WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Eleck Williams appealed his convictions for burglary of an unoccupied dwelling and resisting an officer without violence. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed his convictions, rejecting his arguments that the trial court abused its discretion during jury voir dire and in excluding his oral statements to police.
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in either instance. Hypothetical scenarios designed to test whether jurors could correctly apply the law are permissible when they do not present the actual facts of the case or seek commitments about specific verdict outcomes. Williams's oral statements were properly excluded as inadmissible hearsay, and the rule of completeness did not apply because the State had not introduced any incriminating statements by the defendant.
[1] Hypothetical questions posed during voir dire are permissible when designed to elicit whether prospective jurors can correctly apply the law, rather than to have them ind…
[2] Oral statements made by a defendant to police at the time of arrest are inadmissible hearsay when offered by the defense during the cross-examination of arresting officer…
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“attorneys "may not have jurors indicate, in advance, what their decision will be under a certain state of evidence or upon a certain state of facts,"”
Establishes the general rule prohibiting attorneys from obtaining juror commitments about verdicts based on hypothetical facts.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams was convicted of burglary of an unoccupied dwelling and resisting an officer without violence. During trial, the State posed hypothetical sce…
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 Inadmissible Hearsay cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant Eleck Williams appeals his convictions and sentences for burglary of an unoccupied dwelling, and resisting an officer without violence. Williams raises two issues on appeal, neither of which merits reversal. We accordingly affirm. Williams first argues that during voir dire the court abused its discretion in permitting the State to pose various hypothetical scenarios to prospective jurors, to inquire whether the jurors would convict under those theoretical circumstances. While it is certainly well settled that attorneys “may not have jurors indicate, in advance, what their decision will be under a certain state of evidence or upon a certain state of facts,” Franqui v. State, 699 So. 2d 1312, 1322 n. 5 (Fla.1997), the State’s hypotheticals in this case did not attempt to elicit any such responses. Rather, the State’s questions were geared towards eliciting whether the jurors would find reasonable doubt based upon an extreme set of unrelated hypothetical facts or sympathy. The jurors were not presented with the facts of this case, nor asked to offer their decisions during voir dire. These hypotheticals, designed to determine whether the jurors could correctly apply the law, are permissible. Cave v. State, 899 So. 2d 1042, 1056 (Fla.2005); Mosely v. State, 842 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). Compare Saulsberry v. State, 398 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)(hypothetical embodying facts of case designed to obtain tacit commitment from jurors to convict improper and merited granting mistrial motion). Thus, the court did not abuse its discretion in permitting this line of questioning.
Williams next argues that the court abused its discretion in prohibiting the admission of his oral statements to police at the time of his arrest, during the cross-examination of the officers. The officers testified on direct that Williams had spoken with them; the statements were not disclosed on direct. These statements were properly excluded as inadmissible hearsay. Cotton v. State, 763 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). There was no additional requirement that the statements be introduced under the rule of completeness, as the state did not introduce any incriminating statements by defendant. Husseain v. State, 805 So. 2d 1066, 1067 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)(under “rule of completeness” defendant’s out-of-court exculpatory statements must be admitted when state witness testifies to defendant’s incriminating statements). Guerrero v. State, 532 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)(same). Thus, there was no risk that the jury was misled, or was left with an erroneous impression of what the defendant may have stated.
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the convictions and sentences.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Moore v. State, 939 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…s for cause, or peremptory are proper.... ” Pope, 94 So. at 869; Pait v. State, 112 So. 2d 380 (Fla.1959) (accord). Hypothetical questions, “designed to determine whether the jurors could correctly apply the law, are permissible.” Williams v. State, 931 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). A trial court’s decision to grant or deny a cause challenge is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Still v. State, 917 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). We affirm because the alleged voir dire error is both unpreserved and without…1 / 2
-
Infantes v. State, 941 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…Moreover, even if this issue had been preserved, the State’s hypothetical questions during voir dire were proper as they were designed to determine whether the jurors could correctly apply the law. As this Court recently opined in Williams v. State, 931 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006): [*434] While it is certainly well settled that attorneys “may not have jurors indicate, in advance, what their decision will be under a certain state of evidence or upon a certain state of facts,” Franqui v. State, 699 So. 2d 131…
-
Caldevilla v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)…ed to determine whether jurors could correctly apply the law, are permissible.’ . . . The hypothetical questions did not pretry the case, but tested the venire’s ability to accept both testimonial and physical evidence.”) (quoting Williams v. State, 931 So. 2d 999, 1000 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)); Jones v. State, 216 So. 3d 742, 744 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (“To obtain a fair and impartial jury, and for ‘voir dire examination of jurors . . . to have any meaning, counsel must be allowed to probe attitudes, beliefs and ph…
Authorities Cited
- Franqui v. State (Fla. 1997)
- Cotton v. State, 763 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Guerrero v. State, 532 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Alphonso Cave v. State, 899 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 2005)
- Saulsberry v. State, 398 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Mosely v. State, 842 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Sadiq Husseain v. State, 805 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)