GEORGE ZIMMERMAN, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
A motion to disqualify a trial judge is legally sufficient and must be granted when the allegations, taken together, would create in a reasonably prudent person a well-founded fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial, even if individual allegations standing alone would not meet this threshold.
[1] Under Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.330, a trial judge must grant a motion to disqualify if the allegations, viewed cumulatively, are legally sufficient to cr…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“A motion is legally sufficient if it alleges facts that would create in a reasonably prudent person a well-founded fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial.”
The court stated the legal standard for disqualification motions under Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.330.
George Zimmerman moved to disqualify the trial judge. The trial judge denied the motion. Many of the allegations in Zimmerman's motion, standing alone…
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 Well-Founded Fear Of Unfair Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
George Zimmerman petitions for issuance of a writ of prohibition. This is the proper mechanism for challenging the denial of a motion to disqualify a trial judge. See, e.g., Lusskin v. State, 717 So.2d 1076, 1077 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Reviewing the matter de novo, see R.M.C. v. D.C., 77 So.3d 234, 236 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012), we grant the petition.
Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.330 requires a trial judge to grant a motion to disqualify without determining the accuracy of the allegations in the motion, so long as the motion is “legally sufficient.” R.M.C., 77 So.3d at 236. “A motion is legally sufficient if it alleges facts that would create in a reasonably prudent person a well-founded fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial.” Id. (citing MacKenzie v. Super Kids Bargain Store, Inc., 565 So.2d 1332 (Fla.1990)). Although many of the allegations in Zimmerman’s motion, standing alone, do not meet the legal sufficiency test,1 and while this is admittedly a close call, upon careful review we find that the allegations, taken together, meet the threshold test of legal sufficiency. Accordingly, we direct the trial judge to enter an order of disqualification which requests the chief circuit judge to appoint a successor judge.
PETITION GRANTED.
*1012LAWSON and COHEN, JJ., concur.
EVANDER, J., dissents with opinion.
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. As the majority correctly observes, adverse rulings are not, in and of themselves, sufficient to require the granting of a motion to disqualify. Although the trial court’s order clearly manifested an exceedingly strong belief by the trial judge that Zimmerman had “flouted” and “tried to manipulate” the system, I do not believe the order “crossed the line” so as to require the granting of his motion.
EVANDER, J.,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. As the majority correctly observes, adverse rulings are not, in and of themselves, sufficient to require the granting of a motion to disqualify. Although the trial court’s order clearly manifested an exceedingly strong belief by the trial judge that Zimmerman had “flouted” and “tried to manipulate” the system, I do not believe the order “crossed the line” so as to require the granting of his motion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Great Am. Ins. Co. OF NEW York v. 2000 Island Boulevard Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 153 So. 3d 384 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…r means.). * . We acknowledge the court’s statement in this regard ordinarily would not be sufficient to warrant disqualification. However, “legal sufficiency” is determined by analyzing the totality of the grounds asserted. See Zimmerman v. State, 114 So. 3d 1011, 1011 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). . The June 26 letter reads as a standard reservation of rights letter, citing potentially applicable policy defenses and exclusions, and requesting information (albeit considerable in length and breadth) for its use in ma…
-
Shabtai v. Shabtai (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)…flicts of interest,” even though no evidence had been presented and the opposing party had not raised that specific argument. We agree and find “the allegations, taken together, meet the threshold test of legal sufficiency.” Zimmerman v. State, 114 So. 3d 1011, 1011 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012); Great Am. Ins. Co. of New York,153 So. 3d at 389 n.3 (noting that a legal sufficiency determination considers all comments together and “analyz[es] the totality of the grounds asserted”). We recognize that trial courts…
Authorities Cited
- Honorable Mary Ann MacKENZIE v. Super Kids Bargain Store, Inc., 565 So. 2d 1332 (Fla. 1990)
- R.M.C. v. D.C., 77 So. 3d 234 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
- Lusskin v. State, 717 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- In the Interest of K.H. v. State, 527 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Bond v. State, 717 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)