Freeman v. State
50 So. 3d 1163
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Freeman was convicted of armed trespass and improper exhibition of a weapon at a Walgreens after he refused to leave when asked and waved a knife.
- During jury selection, venire members’ views on police credibility were explored; one juror disclosed relatives in law enforcement and potential bias toward police evidence.
- Defense questioned the juror about whether she could treat police officers like any other witnesses; the juror gave equivocal responses suggesting possible bias.
- Defense challenged the juror for cause; the trial court denied the challenge, and Freeman used a peremptory strike to remove her.
- After exhausting peremptory challenges, another juror who remained seated was not struck; Freeman renews the cause objection at trial.
- The issue was preserved, and the appellate court reviews the denial of a for-cause challenge and the impact on impartiality.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying cause challenge | Freeman | State | Reversed; cause challenge error established |
Key Cases Cited
- Adkins v. State, 736 So.2d 719 (Fla.2d DCA 1999) (preservation when defense objected after denial and renewed objection at panel acceptance)
- Hill v. State, 477 So.2d 553 (Fla.1985) (juror impartiality standard)
- Salgado v. State, 829 So.2d 342 (Fla.3d DCA 2002) (equivocal answers may show bias requiring removal)
- Garcia v. State, 805 So.2d 827 (Fla.2d DCA 2001) (bias in favor of police witness requires removal)
- Busby v. State, 894 So.2d 88 (Fla.2004) (standard not requiring seated juror to be legally objectionable)
- Trotter v. State, 576 So.2d 691 (Fla.1990) (preservation requires identifying an objectionable seated juror)