JAMES CALVIN SMITH, 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.
James Calvin Smith was charged with cocaine possession with intent to sell and sale of cocaine. The State used peremptory challenges to excuse three of four black venire persons, and the trial court refused to inquire into the reasons for those challenges solely because one black juror remained on the panel. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court must conduct a Batson/Neil inquiry into the racial motivation behind peremptory challenges regardless of whether some minority jurors remain seated.
A trial court must conduct a Batson/Neil inquiry into the reasons for peremptory challenges of minority jurors whenever a proper objection is made and a prima facie case of racial discrimination is demonstrated. The mere presence of minority jurors on the final panel does not eliminate the requirement for such an inquiry.
[1] A party claiming racial discrimination in the exercise of a peremptory challenge must voice a timely objection, demonstrate the challenged person is a member of a distinc…
[2] Once a proper and non-frivolous objection to a peremptory challenge is made, the burden shifts to the challenging party to provide a clear and reasonably specific raciall…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a party claiming racial discrimination in the exercise of a peremptory challenge must voice a timely objection to the challenge, demonstrate that the challenged person is a member of a distinct racial group and describe a likelihood that the challenge is motivated solely because of race.”
Establishes the three-part test for raising a Batson/Neil challenge to peremptory strikes
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSmith was charged with possession of cocaine with intent to sell and sale of cocaine. During jury voir dire, the State used three peremptory challenge…
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 Neil Inquiry cases and more on FLexlaw
PRANK, Judge.
The appellant has presented several issues for our review. Our resolution of one issue, however, disposes with the need to pass upon the remaining points.
The appellant was charged with the possession of cocaine with intent to sell and the sale of cocaine. During the jury voir dire the state used three peremptory challenges to excuse three of the four black venire persons. The appellant objected and the state responded, noting that it had kept Mrs. Rich, who is black, on the jury; therefore, the state asserted that no “systematic exclusion” had occurred. The appellant contended that keeping one black person on the jury did not dispense with the need for an inquiry into the reasons for the three peremptory challenges. The trial court agreed with the state, noting that it would make an inquiry only if Mrs. Rich were excused. We reverse.
The procedure to be employed by a trial court when confronted with the peremptory challenge of black jurors is as follows:
a party claiming racial discrimination in the exercise of a peremptory challenge must voice a timely objection to the challenge, demonstrate that the challenged person is a member of a distinct racial group and describe a likelihood that the challenge is motivated solely because of race. State v. Slappy, 522 So. 2d 18 (Fla.), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1219, 108 S.Ct. 2873, 101 L.Ed.2d 909 (1988); State v. Neil, 457 So. 2d 481 (Fla.1984). Once the trial court determines that the objection to the peremptory challenge is proper and not frivolous, the burden shifts and the challenging party must demonstrate “ ‘a clear and reasonably specific’ racially neutral explanation” for the peremptory challenge. Slappy, 522 So. 2d at 22 (quoting Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 98 n. 20, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 1724 n. 20, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986)). In order to uphold the challenge, the court must conclude that the reasons given are neutral and reasonable, and not a pretext designed to achieve the racially based exclusion of a juror. The "Neil inquiry must necessarily focus on the reasons given by the prosecutor for making the challenge.” Kibler v. State, 546 So. 2d 710, 714 (Fla.1989).
Mayes v. State, 550 So. 2d 496, 498 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).
Here, the trial court failed to undertake any inquiry into the reasons for the peremptory challenge to three of the black jurors. The state’s reliance before the trial court solely upon the fact that one black juror remained was sufficient to trigger the inquiry called for in State v. Slappy, 522 So. 2d 18 (Fla.), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1219, 108 S.Ct. 2873, 101 L.Ed.2d 909 (1988). The same inquiry deficiency occurred in Williams v. State, 551 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), rev. denied, 560 So. 2d 235 (Fla.1990). There, the trial court never probed the motivation underlying the challenges to the black jurors, noting that one black juror and one black alternate juror remained on the panel. The first district, in reversing the trial court, concluded that “any doubt as to whether a defendant has met the burden of showing this likelihood [racially based exclusion] must be resolved in his favor.” Id. at p. 496. We, like the first district, subscribe to the view that “the presence of mere numbers is not the real test under Slappy.” Id.
This matter is reversed and remanded for a new trial.
SCHOONOVER, C.J., and DANAHY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Green v. State, 572 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…reasons do not appear to have been volunteered but appear to have been required by the trial court without there having been a ruling as to whether the objecting plaintiff had carried his initial burden. The holding of this court in Smith v. State, 571 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) is consistent with this opinion, defendant’s convictions in that case having been reversed on the basis that the trial court had failed to conduct an inquiry into the state’s reasons for its peremptory challenges of three out of f…
-
McNAIR v. State, 579 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…nire members. See Reynolds v. State, 576 So. 2d 1300 (Fla.1991). On the other hand, the fact that the state left one minority juror on the panel does not eliminate the possibility that other jurors were challenged for racial reasons. Smith v. State, 571 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Mr. McNair chose to represent himself at trial. His objections concerning the jury selection process are not as articulate as one might expect from a trial attorney. It is apparent that the state was willing to justify its chall…
-
Labron Cardilia Marshall v. State, 593 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…of racially motivated peremptory strikes. This argument has been rejected. 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); Thompson v. State, 548 So. 2d 198 (Fla.1989); Smith v. State, 571 So. 2d 16 (Fla.2d DCA 1990). While the acceptance of one black juror may be relevant to the overall determination of “strong likelihood,” it cannot be a legal basis by itself for avoiding a Neil inquiry in a situation involving multiple peremptory strikes.2…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1986)
- State v. Neil, 457 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1984)
- 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)
- Kibler v. State, 546 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 1989)
- William deForest Thompson v. Tobitha Crofton Thompson, 550 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Williams v. State, 551 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)