MANUEL CHARLES, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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 state's racially motivated jury strikes constituted reversible error, requiring a new trial.
[1] A prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges to strike black jurors may be challenged as racially motivated under the test set forth in State v. …
[2] A codefendant's objection to the state's peremptory challenges can preserve the issue for all defendants if the trial court authorizes such procedure.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring jury selection, the state struck three black jurors, prompting a challenge from a codefendant's counsel. The trial court allowed the strikes de…
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. Slappy cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
Appellant, Manuel Charles, and four co-defendants, were charged with conspiracy to traffic in cocaine and appellant was found guilty as charged. Three appellate points have been presented but only one has merit, that having to do with the jury selection process.
During jury selection, the state struck the three black jurors on the panel. Mr. Nurik, counsel for a codefendant, challenged the state’s action as racially motivated. The state responded with an explanation that was unimpressive and would not withstand scrutiny under the test set forth in State v. Slappy, 522 So. 2d 18 (Fla.1988), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1219, 108 S.Ct. 2873, 101 L.Ed.2d 909 (1988), and Roundtree v. State, 546 So. 2d 1042 (Fla.1989). For example, the examination of these stricken jurors was merely perfunctory and other white jurors were seated where stronger grounds for challenge existed as to them. Our examination of the record leads us to conclude that it was error to allow the state to challenge said jurors.
Appellee contends that the error was not preserved because the objection was initially made by a codefendant and not joined in by Charles. In addition, appellee also contends error was waived because at the end of the voir dire the court asked each counsel if he was satisfied with the jury and appellant’s counsel acknowledged that he was satisfied. However, the record does not support the waiver theory because at the beginning of the voir dire counsel for Charles asked the court if the objection by one counsel would stand as an objection by all defendants. The court authorized that procedure. So Mr. Nurik’s questioning of the state’s procedure stood for all defendants. The contention that at the end of the voir dire all defendants agreed to the jury is also unavailing because the question posed by the court regarding acceptance by all was made before Mr. Nurik raised the question of the state’s action being racially motivated.
Accordingly, we find reversible error demonstrated regarding the state’s striking of said jurors, which requires reversal for a new trial.
GUNTHER and WARNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Joiner v. State, 618 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 1993)…BARKETT, C.J., and McDONALD, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur. OVERTON, J., concurs in result only. . Conflict was also alleged with Adams v. State, 559 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 3d DCA), dismissed, 564 So. 2d 488 (Fla.1990), and Charles v. State, 565 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). These cases are distinguishable and therefore are not in conflict. The district court in Adams held that the State v. Neil, 457 So. 2d 481 (Fla.1984), clarified, State v. Castillo, 486 So. 2d 565 (Fla.1986), issue was properly p…
-
Smith v. State, 574 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…dentical to this situation,2 squarely so holds. For this reason, Smith’s conviction is reversed for a new trial.3 Washington We cannot afford similar relief to Washington. This is because, exactly contrary to the circumstances in Charles v. State, 565 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), the Neil-Slappy objection was raised solely by defendant Smith and was not also [*1197] raised, joined or adopted in any way by Washington, who, to the contrary, made a personal statement that he was satisfied with the result of…
-
Longo v. State, 580 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…itness’ use of the letter, nor did he join in his codefendant’s objection. Further, the record does not reveal any authorization by the trial court allowing an objection by one defendant to be applicable to the other defendant. See Charles v. State, 565 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). In the absence of an objection by appellant, review of this issue has been waived. See White v. State, 530 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). As to the charts and graphs, neither appellant nor his codefendant objected to the intro…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Slappy, 522 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 1988)
- Men's Int'l Prof'l Tennis Council v. Volvo N. Am. Corp., 487 U.S. 1219 (U.S. 1988)
- Waste Mgmt. of Wis., Inc. v. Wis. Dep't of Natural Res., 487 U.S. 1219 (U.S. 1988)
- Roundtree v. State, 546 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 1989)