Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

666 So. 2d 223

Docket No. 94-04237.

Richardson v. State

Anthony L. RICHARDSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided December 29, 1995.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1995-12-29

Relies on Wilding v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1995-12-29

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently June 2014

8 state decisions

40199520002010decided

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 →

¶1James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Wayne S. Melnick, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Patricia J. Hakes, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

¶3*224 BLUE, Judge.

¶4Anthony L. Richardson appeals his convictions for resisting arrest with violence and battery on a law enforcement officer. He argues that the trial court erred by refusing to strike the venire panel. We agree and reverse.

¶5Over defense counsel's objection, the trial court used a single venire to select juries for three criminal cases. One member of the venire worked as a corrections officer at Polk Correctional Institution. Her employment was discussed several times. When selection began for Richardson's jury, the corrections officer indicated that she knew him. The exchange between the prosecutor and this prospective member of the jury suggested that she knew Richardson through her employment, implying that he was a convicted felon who previously served time. Defense counsel objected and requested that the trial court strike the panel. The request was denied.

¶6Under article I, section 16, of the Florida Constitution, and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.251, an accused has the right to trial by an impartial jury. Richardson argues that he was deprived of this right based on the exchange between the corrections officer and the prosecutor. We agree. See Wilding v. State,427 So.2d 1069 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (holding that a defendant's right to an impartial trial is violated when unrelated charges are revealed to jury during voir dire). We conclude, based on the record before us, that the trial court erred in denying the motion to strike the venire panel.

¶7Accordingly, we reverse and remand.

¶8ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and LAZZARA, J., concur.

/666/so2d/223 · .json · Public domain