Michael v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided October 31, 2001

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2001-10-31

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently September 2002

1 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[u]ncertainty as to a venireperson's impartiality must be resolved in favor of a party raising the challenge.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 826 So. 2d 492 - Miles v. State

Relies on Trotter v. State · 633 So. 2d 563 - Montozzi v. State · 795 So. 2d 279 - Martinez v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2001-10-31

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 *1293CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

¶2Based on the state’s confession of error, we reverse defendant’s conviction and remand for a new trial. As the state correctly states, defendant’s cause challenge to the objectionable juror should have been granted. The juror expressed that he hoped he could be fair, but that he could not be sure. Uncertainty as to a venireperson’s impartiality must be resolved in favor of the party raising the challenge. James v. State, 731 So.2d 781, 782 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Montozzi v. State, 633 So.2d 563 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); see Martinez v. State, 795 So.2d 279 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). Defendant has demonstrated reversible error. See Trotter v. State, 576 So.2d 691, 693 (Fla.1990).

¶3In view of defendant’s short sentence, we direct the trial court to conduct the new trial forthwith.

¶4Reversed and remanded.