Opinion ID: 1626909
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Refusal to Dismiss Venire

Text: Orme argues that the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the venire after one prospective juror indicated he was opposed to a life sentence without the possibility of parole for twenty-five years because Orme had been convicted fifteen years ago. We deny relief because the trial court properly instructed the jury on this matter. During voir dire, one of the prospective jurors expressed his concern that parole was a possibility after twenty-five years because Orme committed the crime fifteen years ago. Defense counsel then moved to strike the venire panel, arguing that the prospective juror poisoned the entire pool by stating that Orme had been convicted fifteen years ago. The State then suggested that the trial court could remedy the situation by giving a special instruction to explain the sentence of life without the possibility of parole for twenty-five years according to this Court's decision in Green v. State, 907 So.2d 489 (Fla.2005). The trial court then denied the motion, but read the agreed-to instruction to the jury. The trial court's decision on whether to dismiss a venire is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Hernandez v. State, 4 So.3d 642 (Fla.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 160, 175 L.Ed.2d 101 (2009). Also, [i]n order for the statement of one venire member to taint the panel, the venire member must mention facts that would not otherwise be presented to the jury. Johnson v. State, 903 So.2d 888, 897 (Fla.2005). In the instant case, the prospective juror did not mention a fact that would not otherwise be presented to the jury. The fact that Orme had committed the crime in 1992 was a fact presented to every prospective juror in the State's brief explanation of the case during voir dire. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defense's motion to dismiss the venire. Orme further argues that although the trial court provided a jury instruction to clarify that there was no guarantee that Orme would be paroled after twenty-five years if given a life sentence without the possibility of parole for twenty-five years, this instruction should have been given at the beginning of voir dire. However, the trial court followed the procedure used by the trial court and affirmed by this Court in Green. [6] The trial court used the same language used by the trial court in Green and explained to the jury that it was not guaranteed that the defendant would be granted parole after twenty-five years. Such an instruction actually favored Orme because it served to remind any jurors leaning towards the death penalty based on the perception that [Orme] could be paroled in the near future due to the credit for time served that [Orme] could stay in jail for a longer period of time and that there was no guarantee that he would in fact be paroled. Id. at 498-99. Even though this instruction was not provided at the beginning of voir dire, it still remedied and clarified the concern that several of the prospective jurors had with the sentencing option of life without the possibility of parole for twenty-five years. See Thompson v. State, 619 So.2d 261 (Fla. 1993) (finding that the trial court did not commit error in failing to strike the venire after it became apparent that one of the jurors was concerned that the defendant could be released within twelve years if given a life sentence). We find that the trial court did not err in failing to strike the venire.