Case Name: Henry LAVADO, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1985-05-28
Citations: 469 So. 2d 917
Docket Number: No. 83-1050
Parties: Henry LAVADO, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before BARKDULL, BASKIN and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 469
Pages: 917–921

Head Matter:
Henry LAVADO, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 83-1050.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
May 28, 1985.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Howard K. Blumberg, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Randi Klay-man Lazarus, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.
Before BARKDULL, BASKIN and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
After an armed robbery of a pharmacy the appellant was charged with the armed robbery and possession of narcotics. When the cause came on for trial, during voir dire, the defense counsel informed the prospective jurors that specific intent was an essential element of armed robbery causing the trial judge to state that it was not proper to go into the law on jury selection. The trial court stated that counsel could inquire as to the juror's bias against drinking in general. Thereupon defense counsel proffered that he was attempting to elicit answers dealing with the juror's ability to entertain or accept voluntary intoxication as a defense. The trial court refused to permit him to do so. On the final morning of the trial a local radio station on their newscast referred to the defendant's trial and the fact that the state had dropped the drug charges and was only trying the defendant for robbery. As the jury had not been sequestered before the trial began the defense counsel requested that the trial court question the jurors to determine if they had heard any radio newscasts about the trial. The request was denied.
We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court refusing to permit the prospective jurors to be interrogated as to a defense. A prospective juror's bias or prejudice may be elicited through specific questions and answers but their disposition as to whether or not they would entertain a particular defense is not appropriate. Dicks v. State, 83 Fla. 717, 93 So. 137 (1922); Saulsberry v. State, 398 So.2d 1017 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). In Dicks v. State, supra, the Supreme Court stated the following:
* ⅜ * }fc * ⅜!
"The rule governing the scope of the inquiry into the qualifications of a person called for jury duty, is thus laid down in 16 R.C.L. 281: "It is a rule that the examination of persons called to act as jurors is limited to such matters as tend to disclose their qualifications in that regard, under the established provisions and rules of law; and hypothetical questions are not competent, when their evident purpose is to have the jurors indicate in advance what their decision will be under a certain state of the evidence, or upon a certain state of facts, and thus possibly commit them to certain ideas or views when the case shall be finally submitted to them for their decision."
#
When they give an oath to follow the court's instructions they are required to follow the law as given. Rule 3.360 Florida Rules Criminal Procedure; Sections 1.01, 2.05(1) Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases. The court, in the instant case, gave the appropriate instructions on voluntary intoxication and there is no showing that the jury, having been sworn to follow the instructions, failed to do so. Therefore no error has been made to appear.
As to the alleged prejudicial radio broadcast, the nature of the prejudice was never brought to the attention of the trial court and we find no abuse of discretion under the circumstances in refusing to poll the jury. Copeland v. State, 457 So.2d 1012 (Fla.1984); Murphy v. State, 252 So.2d 385 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971) affirmed Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794, 95 S.Ct. 2031, 44 L.Ed.2d 589 (1975).
Therefore for the reasons above stated the conviction under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.