Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

437 So. 2d 208

Docket No. 82-1754.

Lamadrid v. State

Miguel LAMADRID, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided September 13, 1983.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1983-09-13

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[a]n alternate juror who does not replace a principal juror shall be discharged when the jury retires to consider the verdict.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including 762 So. 2d 537 - Bouey v. State, 507 So. 2d 1193 - Eickmeyer v. Dunkin Donuts of America

“We have concluded, in the light of the holding in Berry , that the trial court's denial of a mistrial was reversible error.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 507 So. 2d 1193 - Eickmeyer v. Dunkin Donuts of America

Relies on 298 So. 2d 491 - Berry v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1983-09-13

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently September 2015

5 state decisions

301983199020002010decided

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 →

¶1Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Julian S. Mack, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

¶2Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Paul Mendelson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

¶3Before HENDRY, HUBBART and JORGENSON, JJ.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5Appellant, Miguel Lamadrid, appeals his conviction and sentence for the offense of aggravated battery.

¶6The principal point for our consideration is whether the trial court erred in failing to grant a mistrial where the alternate juror was not timely discharged and was present during jury deliberations. We find error and reverse.

¶7Rule 3.280(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure states in pertinent part:

Except as hereinafter provided regarding capital cases, an alternate juror, who does not replace a principal juror, shall be discharged at the same time the jury retires to consider its verdict.

¶8This rule was not followed in the instant case and the alternate juror was present in the jury room during deliberations.

¶9In Berry v. State,298 So.2d 491 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974), the court reversed appellant's conviction, holding that it was fundamental error to allow an alternate juror to accompany a jury into the jury room during its consideration of the case, even though the alternate juror did not participate in the deliberations. The court held the language of the rule to be mandatory and not permissive.

¶10We have concluded, in the light of the holding in Berry, that the trial court's denial of a mistrial was reversible error. In view of our conclusion that the appellant is entitled to a new trial, we find it unnecessary to consider the other points raised.

¶11Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

/437/so2d/208 · .json · Public domain