Motion to Strike Juror for Cause
1Elements and Case Citations
[MM_Access_Decision access='false']
Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal summarized the standard to strike a juror for cause as follows:
“Florida law requires that a jury be free of “any element of prejudice for or against either party,” Matarranz, 133 So. 3d at 484. To achieve such a laudable goal, “[a] juror must be excused for cause if any reasonable doubt exists as to whether the juror possesses an impartial state of mind,” Smith v. State, 699 So. 2d 629, 635 (Fla. 1997). When evaluating a for-cause challenge, the trial court must look to the “questions posed to and the answers received from the juror to determine whether the juror’s responses are ‘equivocal enough to generate a reasonable doubt’ as to the juror’s fitness to serve.” Hedvall, 283 So. 3d at 912 (quotation omitted)…
Subscribers To The Florida Litigation Guide Can See:
- The complete explanation for this Standard;
- The standard of review on appeal; and
- The citations to the most court cases citing and/or explaining the Standard.
Click Here To See A Sample Chapter From The Guide
Subscribe to The Florida Litigation Guide To Access Everything!
[/MM_Access_Decision] [MM_Access_Decision access='true']Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal summarized the standard to strike a juror for cause as follows:
“Florida law requires that a jury be free of “any element of prejudice for or against either party,” Matarranz, 133 So. 3d at 484. To achieve such a laudable goal, “[a] juror must be excused for cause if any reasonable doubt exists as to whether the juror possesses an impartial state of mind,” Smith v. State, 699 So. 2d 629, 635 (Fla. 1997). When evaluating a for-cause challenge, the trial court must look to the “questions posed to and the answers received from the juror to determine whether the juror’s responses are ‘equivocal enough to generate a reasonable doubt’ as to the juror’s fitness to serve.” Hedvall, 283 So. 3d at 912 (quotation omitted)…
See also Singer v. State, 109 So. 2d 7, 23-24 (Fla. 1959) (holding “if there is basis for any reasonable doubt as to any juror’s possessing that state of mind which will enable him to render an impartial verdict based solely on the evidence submitted and the law announced at the trial he should be excused on motion of a party, or by the court on its own motion”); Nash v. Gen. Motors Corp., 734 So. 2d 437, 440 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (“When any reasonable doubt exists as to whether a juror possesses the state of mind necessary to render an impartial verdict based solely on the evidence submitted and the instructions on the law given to her by the court, she should be excused.”)
Furthermore, “[c]lose calls involving challenges to the impartiality of potential jurors should be resolved in favor of excusing the juror rather than leaving doubt as to impartiality,” Straw v. Associated Doctors Health and Life, 728 So. 2d 354, 356 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (quoting Goldenberg v. Reg’l Import and Exp. Trucking Co., Inc., 674 So. 2d 761, 764 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)), because “if error is to be committed, let it be in favor of the absolute impartiality and purity of the jurors—which is interpreted to mean that the mind of the proposed juror should not contain any element of prejudice for or against either party in a cause to be tried before him.” Matarranz, 133 So. 3d at 484 (citations omitted).”
The standard of review on appeal for a trial court’s grant or denial of a motion to strike a juror for cause is abuse of discretion. Craven v. State, 328 So. 3d 1129, 1130 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021); Pearson v. Phillip Morris USA Inc., 270 So. 3d 441, 444 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019); R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Gloger, 338 So. 3d 977, 980 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022).
FLORIDA STATE COURTS
Supreme Court: Bell v. State, 965 So. 2d 48, 69-71 (Fla. 2007) (holding the trial court was correct not to strike a panel); Busby v. State, 894 So. 2d 88, 90 (Fla. 2004) (holding “the trial court committed reversible error in the denial of a challenge for cause”).
First District: City of Live Oak v. Townsend, 567 So. 2d 926, 927 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (reversing denial of for cause challenges); Craven v. State, 328 So. 3d 1129, 1132 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) (“find[ing] no abuse of discretion by the trial court” in dismissing juror for cause).
Second District: Reyes v. State, 56 So. 3d 814, 815-17 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (reversing trial court’s denial of cause challenge) Pearson v. Phillip Morris USA Inc., 270 So. 3d 441, 445 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) (reversing failure to exclude juror for cause).
Third District: R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co v. Gloger, 338 So. 3d 977, 983 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (reversing denial of “for-cause challenge”); Gonzalez v. State, 143 So. 3d 1171, 1180-81 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (affirming denial of cause challenge).
Fourth District: Frogel v. Phillip Morris USA, Inc., 305 So. 3d 793, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (holding “the trial court committed reversible error by dismissing eight prospective jurors for cause . . .); Sears v. State, 307 So. 3d 746, 754 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (affirming dismissal of juror for cause).
Fifth District: Boykins v. State, 783 So. 2d 317, 318 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (affirming denial of challenge for cause); Gootee v. Clevinger, 778 So. 2d 1005, 1006 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (reversing denial of challenges for cause).
2 Issues And Considerations
(1) See Stat. § 913.03 (West 2013).
(2) “Generally, the test for determining juror competency is whether a juror can lay aside any bias or prejudice and render a verdict solely on the evidence presented and the instructions on the law given by the court.” g., Stockwell v. Drake, 901 So. 2d 974, 976 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).
(3) “A cause challenge ‘must be granted if there is any reasonable doubt regarding a potential juror’s impartiality.’” g., Pearson v. Phillip Morris USA Inc., 270 So. 3d 441, 444 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019).
(4) “The Florida Supreme Court has also consistently recognized that although a juror may express certain biases or prejudices, the issue is whether the juror can and will set aside his or her personal views and render a verdict based solely on the law in light of the evidence introduced at trial.” Gonzalez v State, 143 So. 3d 1171, 1176-77 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014).
(5) “‘Jurors need not be totally ignorant of the facts and issues involved in the case.’ Miller v. Francis, 269 F.3d 609, 616 (6th Cir.2001) (internal citations omitted). Nor does ‘[a] juror’s express doubt as to her own impartiality on voir dire … necessarily entail a finding of actual bias.’’” Carratelli v. State, 915 So. 2d 1256, 1260 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).
(6) “In order to preserve [juror challenge] for appeal, a defendant must object to the juror, exhaust all peremptory challenges, request an additional challenge, and identify a specific juror that he or she would have excused if given an additional challenge.” g., Clark v. State, 190 So. 3d 146, 150 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).
(7) “In analyzing a jury selection issue, the principles set forth in criminal cases are equally applicable to civil cases.” Frogel v. Phillip Morris USA, Inc., 305 So. 3d 793, 787 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020).
(8) “Florida … adhere[s] to the general rule that it is reversible error for a court to force a party to use peremptory challenges on persons who should have been excused for cause, provided the party subsequently exhausts all of his or her peremptory challenges and an additional challenge is sought and denied.” Matarranz v. State, 133 So. 3d 473,483 (Fla. 2013) (internal citations omitted).
(9) “[A]fter a party has exhausted its peremptory challenges, the withdrawal of a peremptory challenge could be warranted by unusual or extenuating circumstances.” McCray v. State, 220 So. 3d 1119, 1127 (Fla. 2017).
[/MM_Access_Decision]