From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

James v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Mar 12, 1991
575 So. 2d 335 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

Opinion

No. 90-367.

March 12, 1991.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dade County; Martin D. Kahn, Judge.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Robert Kalter, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Charles M. Fahlbusch, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before BASKIN, COPE and GERSTEN, JJ.


ON CONFESSION OF ERROR


Based on Pineda v. State, 571 So.2d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), the State concedes that the trial court committed reversible error by limiting voir dire to twenty minutes, where there were twenty-nine potential jurors and the charges were attempted first degree murder of a police officer and robbery. Because there must be a new trial, we need not reach appellant's second point on appeal.


Summaries of

James v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Mar 12, 1991
575 So. 2d 335 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)
Case details for

James v. State

Case Details

Full title:TERRY JAMES, APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Mar 12, 1991

Citations

575 So. 2d 335 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

Citing Cases

Zitnick v. State

Clearly, as the State concedes, the foregoing constitutes reversible error. See James v. State, 575 So.2d 335…

O'Hara v. State

The purpose of voir dire is to ensure a fair and impartial jury. A trial court abuses its discretion when the…