Paul v. State
The Fourth DCA affirmed Paul's convictions for first- and second-degree murder, attempted second-degree murder, and fleeing to elude arising from a two-shooting crime spree and police chase. The court held severance of the murder counts was not required because the offenses were causally and temporally connected as a single crime spree, upheld the trial court's use of a randomized 'traditional jury box' method for replacing peremptorily-struck jurors as a matter of first impression in Florida, and found the prosecutor's rebuttal closing argument was a permissible invited response to defense counsel's attack on the evidence rather than improper burden-shifting or comment on silence. Because no Florida precedent squarely addressed the jury-selection procedure, the court certified a question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court regarding Ter Keurst's scope.
Key facts
- Paul was charged with first- and second-degree murder, attempted second-degree murder, and fleeing to elude following a two-shooting crime spree and police chase.
- The trial court denied severance of the murder counts and used a randomized 'traditional jury box' method to replace peremptorily-struck jurors without disclosing replacement jurors' identities in advance.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This opinion is notable primarily for its certified question to the Florida Supreme Court on an issue of first impression in Florida—whether the randomized 'jury box' method of replacing struck jurors, without… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.