Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

347 So. 2d 664

Docket No. 76-477.

Essix v. State

Robert B. ESSIX, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided May 31, 1977.

Rehearing Denied July 8, 1977.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1977-05-31

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“The extent to which parties may be permitted to go in examining prospective jurors on voir dire is subject to the sound discretion of the trial judge, the exercise of which will not be interfered with unless it is clearly abused.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 790 So. 2d 1253 - King v. State

Relies on Mizell v. New Kingsley Beach, Inc. · Barker v. Randolph

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1977-05-31

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently August 2001

8 state decisions

501977198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Horton, Perse & Ginsberg and Arnold R. Ginsberg, Miami, for appellant.

¶2Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Margarita Esquiroz, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

¶3Before PEARSON, HAVERFIELD and NATHAN, JJ.

¶4*665 PER CURIAM.

¶5Defendant, Robert Essix, appeals his conviction for first degree murder and robbery, and argues that the trial judge unduly restricted the length and scope of defense counsel's voir dire examination of the prospective jurors. We find no merit in this argument.

¶6The extent to which parties may be permitted to go in examining prospective jurors on voir dire is subject to the sound discretion of the trial judge, the exercise of which will not be interfered with unless it is clearly abused. Mizell v. New Kingsley Beach, Inc.,122 So.2d 225 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960); Barker v. Randolph,239 So.2d 110 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970).

¶7The record demonstrates that the trial judge not only permitted defense counsel to engage in extensive voir dire examination, but also granted him wide latitude with respect to the scope of that examination. Furthermore, defense counsel exhausted all peremptory challenges to which he was entitled and expressed to the trial judge his satisfaction with the jury which was ultimately sworn.

¶8Affirmed.

/347/so2d/664 · .json · Public domain