Case Name: STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. George William THAYER, Respondent
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1986-05-07
Citations: 489 So. 2d 782
Docket Number: No. 85-2538
Parties: STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. George William THAYER, Respondent.
Judges: HERSEY, G.J., and DELL, J., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 489
Pages: 782–784

Head Matter:
STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. George William THAYER, Respondent.
No. 85-2538.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
May 7, 1986.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Richard G. Bartmon, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for petitioner.
Elton H. Schwarz, Public Defender, and Jay Kirschner, Asst. Public Defender, Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Fort Pierce, for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The State of Florida seeks review by petition for writ of certiorari of an order granting respondent's motion to submit a questionnaire to prospective jurors.
The questionnaire contains thirty-six questions with numerous subparts. The questions probe into the jurors' politics, religion, social views, hobbies, books read, what, if any, bumper stickers they have on their cars, etc. In short, the questions go far beyond the questions that might ordinarily be asked during voir dire examination. We believe the trial court abused its discretion and departed from the essential requirements of law when it authorized submission of this questionnaire to the prospective jurors. However, we have not discussed the law which we consider disposi-tive of this question because a strict application of the holding in Jones v. State, 477 So.2d 566 (Fla.1985) requires us to deny certiorari.
Moreover, we approved State v. G.P. and held that no right of review by certiorari exists if no right of appeal exists.
Id.
We find Chief Justice Boyd's interpretation of the court's opinion in Jones instructive. However, we are uncertain as to the extent of the state's right of certiorari review in a criminal case. We recognize that our interpretation of Jones v. State conflicts with the result reached by the Second District Court of Appeal in State v. Wilson, 483 So.2d 23 (Fla.2d DCA 1985). Therefore we certify the following question to the Supreme Court as a question of great public importance:
DO THE HOLDINGS IN JONES V. STATE, 477 So.2d 566 (Fla.1985), STATE V. G.P., 476 So.2d 1272 (Fla.1985) and STATE V. C.C., 476 So.2d 144 (Fla.1985) PRECLUDE THE STATE FROM SEEKING CERTIORARI REVIEW OF NON-APPEALABLE INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS IN A CRIMINAL CASE WHERE THE STATE HAS DEMONSTRATED A CLEAR DEPARTURE FROM THE ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS OF LAW? CERTIORARI DENIED.
HERSEY, G.J., and DELL, J., concur.
GLICKSTEIN, J., dissents with opinion.
. The Second District Court of Appeal certified substantially the same question in State v. Wilson.