From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hall v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Aug 3, 1977
348 So. 2d 932 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)

Opinion

No. 76-1726.

August 3, 1977.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Lee County, R. Wallace Pack, J.

Jack O. Johnson, Public Defender, and Robert H. Grizzard, II, Asst. Public Defender, and Paul C. Helm, Legal Intern, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Davis G. Anderson, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.


The only issue meriting discussion is whether, for the purposes of the speedy trial rule, a trial commences when the prospective jurors have been sworn for examination of their qualifications to act as jurors for the week but are not seated for voir dire in the particular trial. The case of State v. May, 332 So.2d 146 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), answered this question in the negative. We agree. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191(a)(3).

In the instant case it appears that on the last day of the speedy trial period, the first day of the trial week, prospective jurors were sworn to examine their qualifications to serve for the week. None were seated for voir dire in this specific case. The next day appellant's motion for discharge was filed, heard and erroneously denied. The speedy trial time had run. Appellant was, and is, entitled to discharge.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.

GRIMES and OTT, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Hall v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Aug 3, 1977
348 So. 2d 932 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)
Case details for

Hall v. State

Case Details

Full title:EDDIE LEE HALL, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Aug 3, 1977

Citations

348 So. 2d 932 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)

Citing Cases

Stuart v. State

The fact that the prospective jurors were seated for voir dire for a particular trial within the period of…

Moore v. State

In accordance with our decision in Stuart, we hold that under Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191(a)(3) a trial…