Court Opinion

ID: 9387954
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-19 15:03:38.135362+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:16.325298
License: Public Domain

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
                              FOURTH DISTRICT

                               PABLO IBAR,
                                Appellant,

                                      v.

                           STATE OF FLORIDA,
                                Appellee.

                              No. 4D19-1956

                              [April 19, 2023]

   Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,
Broward County; Dennis D. Bailey, Judge; L.T. Case No. 94-13062CF10B.

  Joseph Nascimento of Ross Amsel Raben Nascimento, PLLC, Miami, for
appellant.

   Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Deborah Koenig,
Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

MAY, J.

   In this appeal, the defendant seeks to overturn convictions and
sentences on three first-degree murder charges, one armed burglary
charge, one armed robbery charge, and one attempted robbery with a
deadly weapon charge. He raises twelve issues, none of which merit a
reversal. We affirm and write only to address the juror interview issue.

   Three days after his conviction, a juror called the judge’s chambers to
express his regret over the verdict but did not indicate any wrongdoing.
The defendant moved to interview the juror. The trial court denied the
motion, indicating a juror’s subjective expression of regret was insufficient
to invade the jury’s deliberations. The trial court further explained its
authority to interview jurors was limited to alleged violations of the court’s
instruction forbidding jurors from publicly discussing their jury service.

   Shortly thereafter, the State brought to the trial court’s attention that
a juror, suspected to be the same juror who contacted the judge’s
chambers, had posted comments on Reddit expressing his regret and
seeking advice. This time, the State requested to interview the juror. The
defense objected. Over that objection, the trial court interviewed the juror,
who admitted posting the comments. The juror also agreed to remove the
posts and shut down the accounts associated with the posts at the trial
court’s request.

    At this point in the proceedings, the sentencing phase was pending.
The State asked the trial court to strike the juror. The defense objected
and argued the juror’s conduct was not substantially prejudicial, and did
not require a mistrial, a new trial, or striking the juror. The trial court
struck the juror for violating the trial court’s instruction not to discuss the
trial and replaced him with an alternate.

    On appeal, the defense argues the trial court erred when it disallowed
its initial request to interview the juror. The State responds the juror
simply expressed remorse without indicating any wrongdoing or outside
influence on the jury’s deliberations. Florida law did not support an
interview of the juror.

    “[J]uror interviews are not permissible unless the moving party has
made sworn allegations that, if true, would require the court to order a
new trial because the alleged error was so fundamental and prejudicial as
to vitiate the entire proceedings.” Johnson v. State, 804 So. 2d 1218, 1225
(Fla. 2001). Florida Law “absolutely forbids any judicial inquiry into
emotions, mental processes, or mistaken beliefs of jurors.” Baptist Hosp.
of Miami, Inc. v. Maler, 579 So. 2d 97, 99 (Fla. 1991).

      [T]he law does not permit a juror to avoid his verdict for any
      reason which essentially inheres in the verdict itself, as that
      he did not assent to the verdict; that he misunderstood the
      instructions of the Court; the statements of a witness or the
      pleadings in the case; that he was unduly influenced by the
      statements or otherwise of his fellow jurors, or mistaken in his
      calculations or judgment, or other matter resting alone in the
      juror’s breast.

Id.

   We have limited juror inquiries to situations involving “an overt
prejudicial actor or external influence, such as a juror receiving prejudicial
non-record evidence or an actual, express agreement between two or more
jurors to disregard their juror oaths and instructions.” Gray v. State, 72
So. 3d 336, 337 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).

                                      2
    Here, the defendant claims the trial court erred in denying his motion
to interview the juror, but the cases he relies upon do not support his
position. See, e.g., Webb v. State, 519 So. 2d 748, 749 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
(finding verdict was coerced where the trial court told the jury its verdict
must be unanimous and rendered the same day); Nelson v. State, 438 So.
2d 1060, 1061–63 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (reversing because the court read
a coercive jury instruction).

    This record reveals the juror simply regretted his verdict. The mere
remorse of a juror is insufficient to warrant an intrusion into the jury’s
deliberations. There simply was no evidence to suggest the juror was
influenced by any external factors nor that he acquiesced to an agreement
among jurors to disregard their oaths and instructions. There were no
alleged overt prejudicial acts or external influence.         Because the
defendant’s allegations inhered in the verdict, Florida law prohibits a trial
court from interviewing the juror. Gray, 72 So. 3d at 337; Baptist, 579 So.
2d at 99. There was no error. 1

    Affirmed.

CIKLIN and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

                             *        *         *

    Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

1 The interesting twist in this case is the juror was ultimately excused at the
State’s request and over the defense’s objection when the juror posted comments
on Reddit. At that point, the defense wanted the remorseful juror to remain on
the jury for the penalty phase of this death penalty case.

                                      3