1. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. BUSBY v. STATE 894 So.2d 88 (Fla. 2004) Case Brief

2. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. BUSBY v. STATE PURPOSE: Busby discusses peremptory challenges and challenges for cause as well as the Florida standard for granting a new trial where the trial court declined to remove an objectionable juror for cause.

3. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. BUSBY v. STATE CAUSE OF ACTION: Murder in the first degree (death penalty).

4. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. BUSBY v. STATE FACTS: Busby’s cellmate, Ard, was strangled to death. The jury convicted Busby and recommended the death penalty eleven to one. The trial judge denied Busby’s challenge for cause against prospective juror Lapan, a former death row guard, even though Lapan gave a number of equivocal responses when questioned on voir dire. Busby used a peremptory challenge to exclude Lapan and requested additional peremptory challenges, which he would have used to exclude Liebel and Winston whose sons were correctional officers. Winston served on the jury that convicted Busby.

5. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. BUSBY v. STATE ISSUES: 1. Should Lapan have been excluded from the jury on Busby’s challenge for cause? 2. Should Busby be granted a new trial based on the trial court’s failure to grant additional peremptory challenges after Busby used one of his challenges to exclude Lapan?

6. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. BUSBY v. STATE HOLDINGS: 1. Yes. The trial court should have excluded Lapan for cause. 2. Yes. Busby should be granted a new trial because he had exhausted his peremptory challenges.

7. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. BUSBY v. STATE REASONING: Lapan’s equivocal responses raise doubt as to his impartiality, especially in light of his former service as a death row guard. The defendant must be granted a new trial if the trial court improperly refuses to exclude a potential juror for cause, the defendant uses a peremptory challenge to exclude the potential juror, and, because the defendant has no more peremptory challenges, an objectionable person serves on the jury.