AMERICAN SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
KENNETH HETTEL AND ROVERTIA MUHAMMADS, APPELLEES
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.
American Security Insurance Company appealed from a trial court's grant of a new trial in a personal injury action, arguing the court erred in finding the insurer used a peremptory challenge to strike the only Black juror without providing racially neutral reasons. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the defendant's vague explanation failed to satisfy the requirement for clear and reasonably specific race-neutral justification.
The court affirmed the grant of a new trial, holding that the defendant's explanation was insufficient because it did not provide 'a clear and reasonably specific' racially neutral explanation as required by law. Once plaintiffs made an initial showing of potential racial discrimination in the peremptory challenge, the burden shifted to defendant to provide adequate race-neutral reasons, which defendant failed to do.
[1] The prohibition against peremptory challenges based on race applies in civil cases.
[2] When a party objects to a peremptory challenge of a potential juror based on race, the burden shifts to the challenging party to provide racially neutral reasons for the…
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 intelligence“When plaintiffs objected to defendant's peremptory challenge of the only black person on the venire, their initial burden under Neil was carried, and the burden shifted to defendant to show racially neutral reasons for the challenge.”
Establishes the burden-shifting framework applicable in civil cases once race-based challenge is raised
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a personal injury case, defendant insurer exercised a peremptory challenge against the only Black person on the jury venire. Plaintiffs objected to…
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
LEHAN, Judge.
Defendant insurer appeals from the trial court’s order granting a new trial in this personal injury action. We affirm.
The trial court gave two grounds for granting a new trial. The first was that the trial court had previously erred in overruling plaintiffs’ objection to the exercise by defendant of a peremptory challenge of the only black person on the jury venire because defendant, when called upon by the court to give racially neutral reasons for the challenge, did not do so. Since we do not find that first ground erroneous, we need not deal with the second.
As held by the Third and Fourth Districts, State v. Neil, 457 So. 2d 481 (Fla.1984), which deals with peremptory challenges based upon race, applies in civil cases. Johnson v. Florida Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co., 542 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), review dismissed, 549 So. 2d 1013 (Fla.1989) and 551 So. 2d 461 (Fla.1989); City of Miami v. Cornett, 463 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 3d DCA), dismissed, 469 So. 2d 748 (Fla.1985).
When plaintiffs objected to defendant’s peremptory challenge of the only black person on the venire, their initial burden under Neil was carried, and the burden shifted to defendant to show racially neutral reasons for the challenge. Timmons v. State, 548 So. 2d 255, 257 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). See also Green v. State, 572 So. 2d 543, 544-545 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Thereupon, in response to the trial court’s request that counsel for defendant give an acceptable reason for the challenge, defense counsel responded, “I don’t like the way that he responded to my questions, Your Honor ... And he doesn’t appear to be interested in this case or sitting on this jury.” That response was not sufficient to justify the challenge because it did not provide “a ‘clear and reasonably specific’ racially neutral explanation.” State v. Slappy, 522 So. 2d 18, 22 (Fla.), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1219, 108 S.Ct. 2873, 101 L.Ed.2d 909 (1988), quoting Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 96-98 & n. 20, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 1722-24 & n. 20, 90 L.Ed.2d 69, 87-89 & n. 20 (1986). See also Green, at 545-546.
Affirmed.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and DANAHY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Watson v. Gulf Power Co., 695 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…trial lawyers need to learn to follow it.” Id. at 217. AFFIRMED. BOOTH and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur. WOLF, J., concurs in result only. . State v. Neil, 457 So. 2d 481 (Fla.1984). Neil applies in a civil trial. American Sec. Ins. Co. v. Hettel, 572 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Johnson v. Florida Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 542 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), rev. dismissed, 549 So. 2d 1013 (Fla.1989); City of Miami v. Cornett, 463 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 3d DCA), dismissed, 469 So. 2d 748 (Fla.1985).…
-
Hill v. State, 599 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…with approval, and Green remains the law in this district. See McNair v. State, 579 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Johnson v. State, 574 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), review denied, 582 So. 2d 623 (Fla.1991); American Security Ins. Co. v. Hettel, 572 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Hill challenges Green in the following two respects: (1) Green makes the initial burden too strict and (2) once the prosecutor expresses reasons which appear to be racially motivated (as the trial court initially implicitly foun…
-
Alen v. State, 596 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…5 (Fla.1990) (failure of a juror to react emotionally one way or another to questioning on voir dire not a reasonably clear and specific explanation), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 2912, 115 L.Ed.2d 1075 (1991); American Sec. Ins. Co. v. Hettel, 572 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (dislike of the manner in which the juror answered counsel’s questions and juror’s apparent disinterest in case or in sitting on jury not sufficiently clear and specific racially neutral reason for challenge); Foster v. State, 557…
Authorities 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)
- City OF Miami v. Cornett, 463 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Johnson v. Fla. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 542 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- Green v. State, 572 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Timmons v. State, 548 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)