Summary
holding that the trial court acted within its discretion in refusing a cause challenge against a prospective juror who indicated that he would give police testimony a little more credence and that his acquaintanceship with police officers would have "a little effect," but who ultimately stated that he would keep an open mind and follow the instructions of law given by the court
Summary of this case from Guzman v. StateOpinion
Nos. 81-878, 81-1124.
April 13, 1981.
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, James C. Henderson, J.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Carl L. Mastzal, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, for appellee.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Steven R. Jacob, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, BASKIN and JORGENSON, JJ.
We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's refusal to excuse for cause a prospective juror who admitted that his acquaintanceship with police officers would have "a little effect" and that he would give a police officer's testimony a little more respect, but who indicated that he would keep an open mind and follow the court's instructions. § 913.03, Fla. Stat. (1979). Appellant excused the prospective juror by exercising a peremptory challenge but did not indicate dissatisfaction with the jurors selected.
Appellant's remaining points lack merit.
Affirmed.