TONY JEFFERSON, 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 Fourth District affirmed Tony Jefferson's conviction and armed robbery sentence despite the trial court's non-standard remedy for a racially motivated peremptory challenge. The court upheld the trial court's decision to seat the challenged juror rather than apply the mandatory Neil remedy of dismissing the entire jury panel, finding the remedy was not opposed by either party and caused no prejudice to the defendant.
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that while Neil establishes the standard remedy of dismissing the panel and restarting voir dire, that remedy may be waived by a party who does not object to an alternative remedy. The trial court's use of an alternative remedy does not constitute reversible error absent prejudice, and even if the trial court lacks discretion to seat the challenged jurors, any error is harmless.
[1] A party may waive the right to have a jury panel dismissed and voir dire recommenced when a peremptory challenge is found to be racially motivated, by failing to object t…
[2] Seating a juror after a peremptory challenge is found to be racially motivated, rather than dismissing the jury panel, may constitute reversible error absent waiver or ha…
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“In State v. Neil, 457 So.2d 481 (Fla.1984), the court established that the remedy for a race-based challenge is to dismiss the jury panel and start voir dire over.”
Establishes the standard remedy under Neil for addressing racially motivated peremptory challenges
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring voir dire in Jefferson's armed robbery trial, the state exercised a peremptory challenge against a minority juror. The trial court determined 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 Peremptory Challenges cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, Judge.
We affirm appellant’s conviction and sentence for armed robbery.
During voir dire, the state exercised a peremptory challenge against a minority juror. The trial court determined that the challenge was racially motivated, but denied appellant’s motion to strike the jury panel. Instead, the trial court fashioned its own remedy by seating the challenged juror. In State v. Neil, 457 So. 2d 481 (Fla.1984), the court established that the remedy for a race-based challenge is to dismiss the jury panel and start voir dire over. See also State v. Slappy, 522 So. 2d 18 (Fla.), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1219, 108 S.Ct. 2873, 101 L.Ed.2d 909 (1988). In Mazaheritehrani v. Brooks, 573 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), a civil case, this court held that it was reversible error to seat the challenged jurors rather than to apply the Neil remedy of striking the panel, recognizing that a court deprives a party of peremptory challenges by seating the challenged jurors. We note that the Florida Supreme Court has accepted jurisdiction in Mazaheritehra-ni.
In Carter v. State, 550 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 553 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 1989), the appellant argued that the trial court, rather than dismissing the panel, should have seated the unlawfully challenged jurors. The court rejected this argument, recognizing that the trial court properly applied the Neil remedy. The court noted:
We believe that a trial court should have the discretion to cure a discriminatory challenge by means other than dismissal of the entire panel. However, this court and the trial courts are bound by the clear language of Neil, absent directions otherwise from the Florida supreme court.
Id. at 1131 n. 1.
In this case, the trial court found that the state challenged jurors for racial reasons. Instead of applying the Neil remedy, the trial court seated the jurors despite the state’s peremptory challenge. The state did not question the trial court’s remedy. Rather, the defendant (appellant) claims that the trial court’s use of an alternative to the Neil remedy is reversible error, despite the fact that the defendant was not prejudiced by the remedy used.
This court has held that the Neil remedy may be waived by a party who does not object to the use of a different remedy, such as the seating of the challenged jurors. Palmer v. State, 572 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). In Palmer, the defendant declined the opportunity to commence voir dire anew, and was therefore deemed to have waived the right to the Neil remedy. The trial court’s remedy in this case was not opposed by the state, and did not cause prejudice to the defendant. Therefore, the remedy does not conflict with Neil, Palmer, Carter, or Mazaheri-tehrani. These opinions, taken together, establish that the party alleging a biased motive has a right to object to the challenge {Neil), that it is reversible error to force the party exercising the challenge to accept the jurors in lieu of striking the panel and beginning voir dire again (Maza-heritehrani), and that these rights may be waived {Palmer). Even if the trial court lacks the discretion to seat the unlawfully challenged jurors, such error is harmless absent a showing of prejudice.
We have additionally considered the other issues raised on appeal and find no reversible error. We certify the following question to the supreme court:
WHERE THE TRIAL COURT FINDS THAT A PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE IS BASED UPON RACIAL BIAS, IS THE SOLE REMEDY TO DISMISS THE JURY POOL AND TO START VOIR DIRE OVER WITH A NEW JURY POOL, OR MAY THE TRIAL COURT EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION TO DENY THE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE IF IT CURES THE DISCRIMINATORY TAINT?
ANSTEAD and WARNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jefferson v. State, 595 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 1992)…McDonald, justice. We review Jefferson v. State, 584 So. 2d 123, 125 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), in which the district court certified the following question as being of great public importance: 1 WHERE THE TRIAL COURT FINDS THAT A PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE IS BASED UPON RACIAL BIAS, IS THE SOLE REMEDY TO DISMISS THE JURY…
-
Wright v. State, 592 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…a new pool.” Id. at 487. See Carter v. State, 550 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 3d DCA) (trial court, bound by Neil, could not cure a discriminatory challenge by seating a stricken juror), review denied, 553 So. 2d 1164 (Fla.1989). See also Jefferson v. State, 584 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Mazaheritehrani v. Brooks, 573 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), review granted, 582 So. 2d 622 (Fla.1991). Accordingly, the trial court’s action in the instant case necessitates reversal. Our supreme court in Neil did not mentio…
-
Aldret v. State, 592 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…d the right to complain on appeal, where the court determined the State had improperly used peremptory challenges, offered defendant the remedy of dismissing the panel and starting over, and defendant declined. Most recently, in Jefferson v. State, 584 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), the Fourth District examined a case in which the State challenged jurors for racial reasons, the court seated the jurors instead of applying the Neil remedy, and the State “did not question the trial court’s remedy.” Id. at 123.…
Previewing 3 of 5 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)
- 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)
- Carter v. State, 550 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Masoud Mazaheritehrani v. Brooks, 573 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- COX v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 572 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)