REUBEN JAMES THOMPSON
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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 trial court abused its discretion by denying defendant's motion for mistrial where jurors were exposed during voir dire to a concealed carry charge that was subsequently nolle prossed as the defendant was statutorily exempt, violating the defendant's constitutional right to trial by an impartial jury.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion in denying a motion for mistrial when the error is so prejudicial as to vitiate the entire trial.
[2] A defendant's constitutional right to a trial by an impartial jury is lost when there is a possibility that jurors are unfairly prejudiced by the knowledge of additional…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Criminal '[d]efendants have a constitutional right to a trial by an impartial jury. This right is lost when there is a possibility that jurors are unfairly prejudiced by the knowledge of additional charges against a defendant other than those being tried.'”
Establishes the constitutional principle that defendants have a right to an impartial jury and that knowledge of additional charges creates impermissible prejudice.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn September 17, 2019, Thompson was arrested following an altercation with his neighbor and charged with aggravated battery, resisting arrest, and car…
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 Aggravated Battery Causing Great Bodily Harm cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
REUBEN JAMES THOMPSON,
Appellant,
v.
Case No. 5D22-781 LT Case No. 2019-CF-001103-A
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed April 21, 2023 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Citrus County, Richard A. Howard, Judge. Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Nancy Ryan, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Whitney Brown Hartless, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. KILBANE, J.
Appellant, Reuben James Thompson, appeals his conviction for aggravated battery causing great bodily harm. Because the trial court abused its discretion in denying Appellant’s motion for mistrial, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
Facts
On September 17, 2019, Appellant was arrested after an altercation with his neighbor. The State charged Appellant with aggravated battery causing great bodily harm and resisting arrest without violence. Later, the State brought a separate charge of carrying a concealed weapon without a license, which was discovered during his arrest after he fled the scene. The State then consolidated that charge with the aggravated battery and resisting arrest charges. Before trial, Appellant’s counsel moved to sever the unlicensed concealed carry charge, which was denied. Jury selection took place on February 14, 2022, for a trial that was to begin on February 18, 2022. During jury selection, the clerk read an information with all three charges to potential jurors. The trial court explained that the information was not to be considered as evidence; rather, it was a formal accusation. The State and Appellant’s counsel then proceeded to extensively discuss firearms, firearm ownership, and concealed carry permits with potential jurors during the course of voir dire. On February 18, 2022, prior to the jury being sworn and impaneled, the judge held a conference with counsel. The State explained that in the days between jury selection and the start of trial, the State filed a nolle prosequi on the carrying a concealed firearm without a license charge. The State had determined that the Appellant was statutorily exempt from that charge thus requiring a nolle prosequi and amended information. Appellant’s counsel moved for a mistrial based on the jury’s hearing of the original information, which included the carrying a concealed firearm charge, as well as the voir dire questions regarding firearms. The trial court denied the motion for mistrial, finding no prejudice to Appellant, but ruled that any evidence regarding Appellant’s possession of a firearm in the subsequent arrest was inadmissible as irrelevant. Upon seating the jury, the trial court directed the clerk to read the amended information. The trial court further stated: Do you understand that anything you may have heard on Monday in the way of a reading of an information, you just disregard? He’s facing two counts of violations of Florida’s criminal law, aggravated battery and resisting without violence, and no other charges. At the conclusion of the trial, Appellant was found guilty of aggravated battery causing great bodily harm.1
Analysis
A trial court’s ruling on a motion for mistrial is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Salazar v. State, 991 So. 2d 364, 371 (Fla. 2008). “A motion for mistrial should be granted only when it is necessary to ensure that the
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Loran Cole v. State, 701 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 1997)
- England v. State, 940 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 2006)
- Salazar v. State, 991 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 2008)
- Wilding v. State, 427 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Thompson v. State, 507 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 1987)
- Pender v. State, 530 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Holt v. State, 987 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)