Opinion ID: 1940407
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the law prior to trotter

Text: Peremptory challenges have had a long and storied history. [19] This Court has consistently recognized that these challenges are not of constitutional dimension but are a means to ensure that defendants receive an impartial jury. See Carroll v. State, 139 Fla. 233, 190 So. 437, 438 (1939). In Rollins v. State, 148 So.2d 274, 276 (Fla.1963), this Court refused to reverse a conviction based on an erroneous denial of a cause challenge because a peremptory challenge was used on the objectionable venireperson. As Busby did, Rollins exhausted his peremptory challenges, but this Court held that there was no showing that an objectionable or unqualified juror served on the jury. This Court defined objectionable juror as one that is legally objectionable or unqualified to serve. Id. In Swain, 380 U.S. at 219, 85 S.Ct. 824, the United States Supreme Court stated in dicta that the denial or impairment of the right [to exercise peremptory challenges] is reversible error without a showing of prejudice. This Court applied the Swain dicta in Hill v. State, 477 So.2d 553 (Fla.1985). The trial court in Hill erroneously denied a cause challenge, and Hill used a peremptory on the objectionable venireperson. With little analysis, this Court stated: We find that such error cannot be harmless because it abridged appellant's right to peremptory challenges by reducing the number of those challenges available him. Florida and most other jurisdictions adhere to the general rule that it is reversible error for a court to force a party to use peremptory challenges on persons who should have been excused for cause, provided the party subsequently exhausts all of his or her peremptory challenges and an additional challenge is sought and denied. See Singer[ v. State, 109 So.2d 7 (Fla.1959)]; Leon v. State, 396 So.2d 203 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). See also Wasko v. Frankel, 116 Ariz. 288, 569 P.2d 230 (Ariz.1977); Jones v. Cloud, 119 Ga.App. 697, 168 S.E.2d 598 (1969); State v. Sugar, 408 So.2d 1329 (La.1982); State v. Ternes, 259 N.W.2d 296 (N.D.1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 944, 98 S.Ct. 1524, 55 L.Ed.2d 540 (1978); Commonwealth v. Jones, 477 Pa. 164, 383 A.2d 874 (Pa.1978); Martin v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 436, 271 S.E.2d 123 (Va.1980). Hill, 477 So.2d at 556. The majority of the cases cited in Hill cite to Swain as authority. This Court did not provide a state constitutional or statutory law basis for its holding in Hill. Thus, the most reasonable inference is that the decision was based on federal constitutional requirements in light of Swain. Four years later, this Court considered a similar situation in Hamilton v. State, 547 So.2d 630 (Fla.1989). The trial court in Hamilton erroneously denied a cause challenge to a juror. Although Hamilton could have used one of his remaining peremptory challenges to remove the challenged juror, he elected not to do so. At the conclusion of voir dire, after Hamilton had exhausted his peremptory challenges, he requested an additional peremptory challenge so he could backstrike the juror. The request was denied, and the biased juror sat on the panel that issued a verdict in the case. This Court held that the failure to excuse this juror upon motion deprived Hamilton of his constitutional right to a fair trial, requiring us to reverse the conviction and remand this case for a new trial. Hamilton, 547 So.2d at 633. Hamilton differs from Hill in that a legally objectionable juror actually served on the jury in Hamilton. Twenty-three years after Swain was decided (but only three years after Hill ), the United States Supreme Court confronted the question before us in Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81, 108 S.Ct. 2273, 101 L.Ed.2d 80 (1988). The Court addressed Ross's arguments based on federal constitutional rights and then on state law. First, the Court held that peremptory challenges are not of federal constitutional dimension and rejected the argument that, without more, the loss of a peremptory challenge constitutes a violation of the constitutional right to an impartial jury. Id. at 88, 108 S.Ct. 2273. The Court concluded that, because peremptory challenges are only a means to achieve the end of an impartial jury, whether a litigant is forced or required to exercise a peremptory challenge does not violate the Sixth Amendment so long as the jury that sits is impartial. See id. at 88, 108 S.Ct. 2273. Second, the Court considered and rejected Ross's argument that the trial court's failure to remove a juror for cause violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process by arbitrarily depriving him of the full complement of nine peremptory challenges allowed under state law. Id. at 89, 108 S.Ct. 2273. The facts in Ross are nearly identical to those in this case, and the Oklahoma law is very similar to Florida law in that a defendant who disagrees with a trial court's ruling on a cause challenge must, in order to preserve the claim that the ruling deprived him of a fair trial, exercise a peremptory challenge to remove the juror. The Court held that such a requirement is consistent with the ultimate goal of empaneling an impartial jury. Id. Thus, the Court concluded that Ross did not lose any state law right when he used one of his challenges to remove a juror who should have been excused for cause. Instead, the Court held that Ross received all that state law allowed him and received the fair trial guaranteed by the federal constitution. Id. at 90-91. And, contrary to the majority's position in this case, the Court in Ross found that this blurring of the distinction between peremptory and cause challenges did not violate Oklahoma law nor did it violate Ross's due process rights. However, the Court did tacitly acknowledge that repeated and deliberate misapplication of the law by the trial court might rise to the level of a due process violation. See id. at 91 n. 5. [20]