STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
JOHNNY L. JONES, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the defendant is entitled to the benefit of the ruling in State v. Neil, which applies to cases pending on appeal.
During jury selection, the state used peremptory challenges to remove all five black prospective jurors, despite their declarations of impartiality. T…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse State V. Neil Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
McDONALD, Justice.
We have for review Jones v. State, 466 So. 2d 301 (Fla.3d DCA 1985), because of conflict with Wright v. State, 471 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), over the retroactive application of State v. Neil, 457 So. 2d 481 (Fla.1984). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article Y, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution, and we approve the result reached in Jones.
A jury convicted Jones of grand theft. During jury selection the state used five of its six peremptory challenges to remove the five black prospective jurors questioned on voir dire. Each of these had declared that he or she could be fair and impartial and demonstrated no reluctance to sit on the jury. No apparent reason, other than col-or, for their removal exists. The defense made appropriate and timely objections as prescribed by Neil. The state failed to explain any basis for .the exercise of its peremptory challenges. Defense counsel continued to object to the exclusion of blacks from the jury and refused to accept the jury. The defendant adequately fulfilled his part of the required procedure specified in Neil.
Jones should have the benefit of our ruling in Neil. Had Jones’ case arrived here first it would be decided the same way as Neil because his contention was the same as Neil’s. In any event we generally apply the law as it exists at the time of appeal. Dougan v. State, 470 So. 2d 697, 701 (Fla.1985); Lowe v. Price, 437 So. 2d 142 (Fla.1983). Our statement in Neil that it was to have no retroactive application was intended to apply to completed cases.
We do not discuss the circumstantial evidence issue referred to in the district court’s opinion. That court’s finding that Jones is entitled to a new trial is approved.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW and BARKETT, JJ„ concur. ADKINS, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (32 total)
-
State v. Ronnie S. LAW, 559 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 1989)…tent with this opinion. It is so ordered. overton, McDonald, shaw, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur. . For a comprehensive review of the rule as it has been applied in Florida see Jones v. State, 466 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), approved, 485 So. 2d 1283 (Fla.1986). . In Lynch v. State, 293 So. 2d 44, 45 (Fla.1974), we said: A defendant, in moving for a judgment of acquittal, admits not only the facts stated in the evidence adduced, but also admits every conclusion favorable to the adverse party t…
-
State v. Slappy, 522 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 1988)…70-72, 98 L.Ed. 866 (1954); Akins v. Texas, 325 U.S. 398, 403-04, 65 S.Ct. 1276, 1279, 89 L.Ed. 1692, rehearing denied, 326 U.S. 806, 66 S.Ct. 86, 90 L.Ed. 491 (1945); Martin v. Texas, 200 U.S. 316, 26 S.Ct. 338, 50 L.Ed. 497 (1906); State v. Jones, 485 So. 2d 1283 (Fla.1986); Pearson v. State, 514 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Floyd v. State, 511 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Blackshear; Kibler v. State, 501 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). This Court early had recognized the impossible burden imposed by Swa…
-
Rhoda Smith v. State, 598 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 1992)…stinguished collateral cases from "pipeline” cases, i.e., those not yet final, at the time the law changed, applying the change in law retrospectively only to the pipeline cases. See, e.g., Jones v. State, 569 So. 2d 1234 (Fla.1990); State v. Jones, 485 So. 2d 1283 (Fla.1986); Bundy v. State, 471 So. 2d 9 (Fla.1985), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 894, 107 S.Ct. 295, 93 L.Ed.2d 269 (1986); Gonzalez v. State, 367 So. 2d 1008 (Fla.1979). The distinction between collateral and nonfinal cases with regard to retrospectivit…
Previewing 3 of 32 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Neil, 457 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1984)
- Lowe v. The Honorable Joseph E. Price, 437 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 1983)
- Dougan v. State, 470 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1985)
- Jones v. State, 466 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Wright v. State, 471 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)