Opinion ID: 1150032
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Issue I: An unsworn juror's catching sight of appellant in the custody of the sheriff.

Text: Before the first day of testimony, but after voir dire, a juror arrived at the courthouse early and saw the sheriff's deputies taking appellant from the van that had transported him from the jail. Appellant told his lawyer, who made a motion to disqualify this juror. The panel had not been sworn at this time. In chambers the trial judge and defense counsel questioned the juror, who testified that he drew no inferences from seeing appellant in custody and had not talked to any other jurors about the incident. The judge denied the motion. The central issue here is one of perception. Appellant now argues that because trial counsel had not exhausted his peremptory challenges, and because the panel had not yet been sworn, the motion to disqualify should be seen as an attempt to backstrike, which the court had no authority to deny. See Rivers v. State, 458 So.2d 762 (Fla. 1984); Jones v. State, 332 So.2d 615 (Fla. 1976). The state points out that defense counsel never used the words peremptory challenge and that this was not the nature of his effort to disqualify the juror. The defense motion was not a peremptory challenge. The defense in a criminal trial need give no reason for exercising its peremptory challenges. It is clear that this was a challenge for cause directed toward the possible taint which may have been caused by the juror seeing appellant in the custody of law enforcement. Thus, the inquiry must focus on whether the denial of the challenge was error. Our review of the record persuades us that the judge did not abuse his discretion in failing to strike the juror for cause. It is apparent from his answers to questions posed by the judge and counsel that the juror had not made much of the incident and had told none of his fellow jurors. A juror's catching inadvertent sight of a defendant in handcuffs, chains or other restraints (what the juror saw in this regard is not clear) is not so prejudicial as to require a new trial. Heiney v. State, 447 So.2d 210 (Fla.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 920, 105 S.Ct. 303, 83 L.Ed.2d 237 (1984); Neary v. State, 384 So.2d 881 (Fla. 1980).