Welch v. State
189 So. 3d 296
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2016Background
- Curtis Welch was charged with two counts related to stalking: Count I (violation of a temporary injunction, Dec 17–26, 2013) and Count II (violation of a final injunction, Dec 26, 2013–Feb 14, 2014).
- Jury convicted Welch of the lesser included offense of stalking on Count I and aggravated stalking on Count II; sentences imposed concurrent: 365 days (Count I) and 10 years (Count II).
- During voir dire Welch moved to strike four prospective jurors for cause; two denials were unchallenged on appeal, two (Strickland and Wolff) were contested.
- Strickland and Wolff expressed that a defendant’s failure to testify would "linger" or that they "need to hear everything," equivocations that defense argued violated Welch's right to remain silent and presumption of innocence.
- Trial court denied those two cause challenges but granted one additional peremptory; Welch appealed alleging improper denial of cause challenges (requiring reversal only if two or more such denials were erroneous) and a double jeopardy violation.
- The court reversed for improper denial of two challenges for cause but rejected Welch's double jeopardy claim, holding the two convictions were for distinct acts separated by arrest and service of a final injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Welch) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying challenges for cause to two jurors | Strickland and Wolff should have been excused because their statements showed they would penalize defendant's silence and not be impartial | Jurors said they could follow instruction and be fair; equivocations did not mandate excusal | Reversed: trial court abused discretion; both jurors should have been struck for cause |
| Whether the erroneous denials were harmless given an extra peremptory | One extra peremptory was insufficient; reversal required only if two or more cause denials occurred | State relied on grant of one extra peremptory to cure error | Reversed: two improper denials not cured by single additional peremptory |
| Whether convictions on Count I and Count II violate double jeopardy | Counts overlapped temporally and substantively; should be a single offense | Arrest and later service of final injunction created separate incidents allowing new intent and distinct offenses | Affirmed: convictions and sentences do not violate double jeopardy |
| Remedy and retrial scope | Vacate convictions and bar retrial on both offenses | State may retry under Rule 3.640 for same offenses | Reversed and remanded for new trial; State permitted to retry stalking (Count I) and aggravated stalking (Count II) |
Key Cases Cited
- Matarranz v. State, 133 So. 3d 473 (discusses standard for striking jurors for cause and reasonable doubt about impartiality)
- Pelham v. Walker, 135 So. 3d 1114 (ambiguities about juror impartiality should be resolved in favor of excusal)
- Carratelli v. State, 961 So. 2d 312 (equivocal juror responses require excusal when reasonable doubt exists)
- McKay v. State, 61 So. 3d 1178 (juror inclination to convict if defendant does not testify is at odds with presumption of innocence)
- Kopsho v. State, 959 So. 2d 168 (consistently equivocal juror answers raise reasonable doubt about fitness)
- Drawdy v. State, 136 So. 3d 1209 (double jeopardy review is de novo)
- Hayes v. State, 803 So. 2d 695 (distinct criminal acts may sustain multiple convictions)
- Hammel v. State, 934 So. 2d 634 (apprehension/arrest can create a temporal break allowing new criminal intent)