HAROLD HUNT, 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.
Harold Hunt was convicted of drug possession and sentenced to five years imprisonment. On appeal, he challenged the trial court's denial of his motion to excuse a juror for cause based on her relationships with law enforcement officers, and contested the sufficiency of evidence.
The court held that the juror challenge did not meet statutory grounds for cause under Florida law, and the trial judge did not abuse discretion in finding the juror competent. The court also held that the evidence presented was ample and sufficient to support the jury verdict.
[1] A trial court's decision on a juror's competency, a question of mixed law and fact, will not be disturbed on appeal unless the error is manifest.
[2] A juror's relationship with law enforcement officers does not automatically disqualify them from service if they attest to an ability to remain impartial and decide the c…
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“Competency of a challenged juror is a question of mixed law and fact to be determined by the trial judge in his discretion and the decision of the trial judge will not be disturbed unless the error is manifest.”
Establishes the standard of review for trial court decisions on juror competency challenges, giving broad discretion to the trial judge.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHunt was tried by jury and convicted of possession of a controlled substance. During voir dire, a prospective juror (Miss Lunsford) disclosed that her…
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 Juror Impartiality cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant, Harold Hunt, was tried by jury, convicted and sentenced to five years in the state penitentiary for possession of a controlled substance. He appeals contending that on voir dire examination, after he had used all of his peremptory challenges, the trial court erred in denying his motion to excuse a juror for cause.
The challenged juror, in response to questioning by the court, stated,
“THE COURT: What kind of work do you do, ma’am ?
MISS LUNSFORD: I’m a dietician.
THE COURT: Is there anybody in your family or close to you who is either in law enforcement or in the legal profession?
MISS LUNSFORD: My boy friend is a policeman. My brother-in-law is a policeman and my boy friend’s sister is a policeman.
THE COURT: Is there anything about your relationship with any of those people which would affect your ability to be fair?
MISS LUNSFORD: I don’t believe so. I don’t think so.
THE COURT: Would you give any more weight to the testimony of a police officer than you would to any other witness?
MISS LUNSFORD: No.”
Other questions on voir dire elicited that the juror’s brother-in-law had just gotten out of police training; that she had been seeing her police officer boy friend for about six months, and that she had little or no discussions about police work with her boy friend or brother-in-law. The trial was completed the same day as the jurors were impaneled.
• The challenge for cause to the individual juror by Hunt does not come within or meet the grounds for challenge under § 913.03, Fla.Stat. We find nothing in the record that the juror sought to be challenged was possessed of a state of mind which would prevent her from returning a verdict according to the evidence submitted and the law given at the trial. As stated in Piccott v. State, Fla.1959, 116 So. 2d 626,
“Competency of a challenged juror is a question of mixed law and fact to be determined by the trial judge in his discretion and the decision of the trial judge will not be disturbed unless the error is manifest.”
Hunt also contends that the trial court erred in denying his motions for a directed verdict at the close of the state’s case and at the close of all of the evidence because the evidence was insufficient to prove the crime charged. We regard the evidence adduced at trial ample and sufficient to support the jury verdict.
The other point on appeal is without merit and will not be discussed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Enoch Lewis, Jr. v. State, 377 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 1979)…spective alternate juror might possess with regard to a witness who was of the same profession. The purpose of the voir dire proceeding is to secure an impartial jury for the accused. See Pope v. State, 84 Fla. 428, 94 So. 865 (1923); Hunt v. State, 330 So. 2d 502 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); Barker v. Randolph, 239 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970); Gibbs v. State, 193 So. 2d 460 (Fla.2d DCA 1967). Consequently, the possible bias of a member of the jury venire [*DCCXXIII] which, as here, might affect the fairness of the…
-
Copeland v. State, 748 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…PER CURIAM. The order denying postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 is affirmed. As to the first issue, see State v. Altman, 432 So. 2d 159, 160 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). As to the third issue, see Hunt v. State, 330 So. 2d 502, 503-04 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). The fourth issue was decided in appellant’s direct appeal.* The remaining points are without merit. * We take judicial notice of the briefs in appellant’s direct appeal from his conviction, Copeland v. State, 717 So.…
Authorities Cited
- Piccott v. State, 116 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 1959)