Case Name: Richard MILSTEIN, esq., as Personal Representative of the Estate of Tommie Harvey, Deceased, et al., Appellant, v. MUTUAL SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Indiana corporation, in Liquidation d/b/a Anderson Health Care Center, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1998-01-21
Citations: 705 So. 2d 639
Docket Number: No. 97-1415
Parties: Richard MILSTEIN, esq., as Personal Representative of the Estate of Tommie Harvey, Deceased, et al., Appellant, v. MUTUAL SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Indiana corporation, in Liquidation d/b/a Anderson Health Care Center, Appellee.
Judges: Before COPE, GODERICH and SORONDO, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 705
Pages: 639–643

Head Matter:
Richard MILSTEIN, esq., as Personal Representative of the Estate of Tommie Harvey, Deceased, et al., Appellant, v. MUTUAL SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Indiana corporation, in Liquidation d/b/a Anderson Health Care Center, Appellee.
No. 97-1415.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Jan. 21, 1998.
Andrew L. Ellinberg, Wilkes & McHugh, and Edward J. Lyons, Tampa, for appellant.
Thornton, Mastrucci & Sinclair, Jane Thornton Mastrucci, and John W. Thornton, Sr., Coral Gables, for appellee.
Before COPE, GODERICH and SORONDO, JJ.

Opinion:
COPE, Judge.
In this appeal after a defense verdict, the plaintiff personal representative claims error in jury selection. Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in refusing to grant him an additional peremptory challenge after plaintiff was forced to expend a peremptory strike on a juror who should have been removed for cause. We' conclude that the point has not been preserved for appellate review because the plaintiffs objection was not renewed before the jury was sworn.
During jury selection, plaintiff challenged juror Salazar for cause. The trial court refused to strike Salazar. We agree with plaintiff that the for-cause challenge should have been granted. Plaintiff exercised a peremptory challenge against juror Salazar, thus removing him from the jury.
After exhausting his remaining two peremptory challenges, plaintiff requested an additional peremptory challenge, stating that he wished to strike juror Youmans. The request for an additional peremptory challenge was denied, and juror Youmans served on the jury. Plaintiff did not renew his objections prior to the time that the jury was sworn.
The question before us is whether it was necessary for the plaintiff to renew his objection at the conclusion of jury selection in order to preserve the jury selection issues for appellate review. We conclude that it was.
In Joiner v. State, 618 So.2d 174 (Fla.1993), the defendant sought to appeal the denial of his Neil objection that the State had used peremptory challenges on a racial basis. The Joiner court ruled that the peremptory challenge issue was not preserved for appellate review because defendant
affirmatively accepted the jury immediately prior to its being sworn without reservation of his earlier-made objection_ Had Joiner renewed his objection or accepted the jury subject to his earlier Neil objection, we would rule otherwise. Such action would have apprised the trial judge that Joiner still believed reversible error had occurred. At that point the trial judge could have exercised discretion to either recall the challenged juror for service on the panel, strike the entire panel and begin anew, or stand by the earlier ruling.
618 So.2d at 176; accord Melbourne v. State, 679 So.2d 759, 765 (Fla.1996); Mitchell v. State, 620 So.2d 1008, 1009 (Fla.1993).
Joiner rests on the idea that it is a severe step to overturn an otherwise error-free trial based solely on a jury selection error, and particularly on an error involving peremptory challenges. Joiner thus mandates that the claimed error be called to the trial court's attention once more prior to the swearing of the jury, so that the court will be made aware that the objecting party is insisting on the objection, and so that the court will have a last clear chance to take corrective action if needed. The reasoning of Joiner renders it applicable to jury selection generally, and it is not confined by its terms or its logic solely to situations involving Neil challenges. This court and the Fourth District Court of Appeal have applied Joiner to other jury selection issues outside of the Neil context. See Karp v. State, 698 So.2d 577, 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (denial of motion to strike entire venire panel after potential juror spontaneously made allegedly prejudicial comments; held, issue not preserved); Stripling v. State, 664 So.2d 2, 3 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (trial court rulings that allegedly unduly restricted defendant's voir dire inquiry; held, issue not preserved); Green v. State, 679 So.2d 1294, 1294 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (time limitations imposed by trial court on voir dire examination; held, issue not preserved). We therefore conclude it was necessary for plaintiff to renew the objection prior to the time that the jury was sworn.
It is suggested, however, that the Florida Supreme Court decision in Trotter v. State, 576 So.2d 691 (Fla.1990), sets out the only steps which must be followed where, as here, a litigant is refused an additional peremptory challenge after wrongly being required to exhaust a peremptory challenge on a juror who should have been stricken for cause. Trotter explains that the litigant must use a peremptory challenge to remove the objectionable juror, exhaust remaining peremptory challenges, and request an additional peremptory challenge to be exercised against a specifically identified juror. See id. at 693 & n. 7. Trotter says nothing about renewing the objection at the conclusion of jury selection.
We do not think Trotter stands for the proposition that it is unnecessary for the litigant to renew the objection prior to the time that the jury is sworn. In Trotter, the defendant had simply requested an additional peremptory challenge without identifying the specific juror he desired to strike peremptorily. See id. at 693. Since Trotter's request was insufficient as a matter of law, id., the supreme court did not need to reach the additional question whether it was also necessary for Trotter to renew his jury selection objections before the jury was sworn. We conclude that Joiner (which was decided after Trotter) is applicable here.
The remaining question is whether the Joiner rule applies where, as here, the plaintiff did not affirmatively accept' the jury. In the present case, at the conclusion of jury selection the court did not ask counsel whether they accepted the jury, and thus there were no explicit statements of acceptance by either side. In Joiner, the court pointed out that the defendant had (a) affirmatively accepted the jury and (b) failed to renew his earlier-made Neil objection. See 618 So.2d at 176. However, the Joiner test has been restated more simply as requiring that the objection be renewed prior to the time that the jury is sworn. See Mitchell v. State, 620 So.2d 1008, 1009 (Fla.1993) ("We held in Joiner v. State, 618 So.2d 174 (Fla.1993), that in order to preserve a Neil issue for review, it is necessary to call to the court's attention before the jury is sworn, by renewed motion or by accepting the jury subject to the earlier objection, the desire to preserve the issue."); Bauta v. State, 698 So.2d 860, 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) ("Because this objection was not renewed at the conclusion of jury selection it is not preserved for appellate review."); Watson v. Gulf Power Co., 695 So.2d 904, 905 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) ("The Joiner procedural requirement applies . even though the trial court did not formally ask the parties whether the jury panel was acceptable and even though nothing the appellant did or said could reasonably have caused the trial court to believe that she had waived her earlier Neil objections to the peremptory challenges."); see also Melbourne v. State, 679 So.2d at 765. It is our view that the logic of Joiner requires the litigant to renew the previous objection even where, as here, the litigant has made no statement affirmatively accepting the jury. We conclude that Joiner applies and it was necessary for the objection to be renewed.
Affirmed.
GODERICH, J., concurs
. The trial court repeatedly reserved ruling on plaintiff's motion to strike juror Salazar for cause. The reservation was apparently done because plaintiff and the court each had a different understanding of what juror Salazar had said. (Plaintiff's understanding is borne out by the transcript.) Certainly a temporaiy reservation of ruling would have been permissible if needed, for example, to have the juror's voir dire responses read back, but that was not done here. Plaintiff was entitled to have a ruling. In effect, by reserving ruling, the trial court denied the challenge.
. State v. Neil, 457 So.2d 481 (Fla.1984).