STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
TIMOTHY LEE FOX, 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 Florida Supreme Court reversed the Fourth District Court of Appeal's reversal of Fox's robbery conviction, holding that a defendant must affirmatively contest the factual basis of a prosecutor's race-neutral explanation for a peremptory challenge during trial, not wait until appeal, to properly preserve the issue for appellate review.
The trial court did not err because a defendant must affirmatively place the court on notice at trial that he or she contests the factual existence of a prosecutor's proffered reason for a peremptory challenge. When defense counsel remains silent and does not challenge the prosecutor's factual assertion, the Neil issue is not properly preserved for appellate review.
[1] A trial court is not required to independently verify the factual basis of a prosecutor's race-neutral reason for striking a juror when defense counsel fails to challenge…
[2] A defendant must challenge the factual basis of a prosecutor's proffered race-neutral reason for striking a juror to preserve the issue for appellate review.
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“It is the state's obligation to advance a facially race-neutral reason that is supported in the record. If the explanation is challenged by opposing counsel, the trial court must review the record to establish record support for the reason advanced.”
Establishes the prosecutor's burden to provide a race-neutral explanation for peremptory challenges that is supported by the record
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFox was charged with robbery. During jury selection, the prosecutor used a peremptory challenge to strike Mr. Williams, one of only two black prospect…
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.
BARKETT, Justice.
We review Fox v. State, 573 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), based on asserted conflict with Floyd v. State, 569 So. 2d 1225 (Fla.1990), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 111 S.Ct. 2912, 115 L.Ed.2d 1075 (1991).*
Fox was charged by information with robbery. During jury selection, the prosecutor exercised a peremptory challenge to strike a black juror. Fox made a timely objection to the challenge on the basis of State v. Neil, 457 So. 2d 481 (Fla.1984), clarified, State v. Castillo, 486 So. 2d 565 (Fla.1986), stating that the prospective juror, Mr. Williams, was one of only two prospective black jurors out of a panel of thirty. The trial court asked the prosecutor to give reasons for striking the black juror, and the prosecutor replied, “Because the testimony I believe was he was on jury duty and there was a hung jury, and he couldn’t make a decision. I don’t want a juror that can’t make a decision.” The judge overruled the defense’s objection, finding the prosecutor’s explanation was race-neutral. Fox did not contest the adequacy of the explanation or its record support. The jury ultimately chosen found Fox guilty of the robbery charge. On appeal, the district court reversed Fox’s conviction, stating:
[T]he record shows that the state was incorrect in' its assertion that Mr. Williams had previously served on a hung jury. Regrettably, neither defense counsel nor the trial judge had the voir dire testimony read back to determine if the state’s assertion was factually correct. Nonetheless, the state failed to meet its burden of showing a “racially neutral” reason for excusing juror Williams that was supported by his testimony in the record.
573 So. 2d at 963.
In Floyd v. State, 569 So. 2d at 1229-30, this Court held:
It is the state’s obligation to advance a facially race-neutral reason that is supported in the record. If the explanation is challenged by opposing counsel, the trial court must review the record to establish record support for the reason advanced. However, when the state asserts a fact as existing in the record, the trial court cannot be faulted for assuming it is so when defense counsel is silent and the assertion remains unchallenged. Once the state has proffered a facially race-neutral reason, a defendant must place the court on notice that he or she contests the factual existence of the reason .... Because defense counsel failed to object to the prosecutor’s explanation, the Neil issue was not properly preserved for review.
In the instant case, defense counsel did not contest the State’s factual assertion. The district court thus erred in reversing Fox’s conviction as the issue had not been preserved for appellate review.
Accordingly, we quash the opinion below and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur. *
We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rimmer v. State, 825 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 2002)…-neutral explanation, and Juror Edmonds could not have been peremptorily excused. Because defense counsel failed to object to the prosecutor’s explanation, the Neil issue was not properly preserved for review. Id. at 1229-30; see also State v. Fox, 587 So. 2d 464 (Fla.1991). Likewise, here, the factual accuracy of the reason offered by the State could easily have been determined by reviewing the record. The trial court in this instance cannot be faulted for accepting the facial reason offered by the State,…
-
Nelson v. State, 688 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…was the court placed on notice that the defense was contesting the factual basis for the asserted race-neutral reason. See Floyd v. State, 569 So. 2d 1225 (Fla.1990), cert, denied 501 U.S. 1259, 111 S.Ct. 2912, 115 L.Ed.2d 1075 (1991); State v. Fox, 587 So. 2d 464 (Fla.1991); Miller v. State, 636 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (if defense counsel fails to object to the reasons given by the prosecutor for excusing a juror, the issue is waived). Rather, Appellant’s contention that the state did not articulate a…
-
Heggan v. State, 745 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…the state’s recollection of the exchange with the juror was erroneous. Thus, the argument advanced by the defense on appeal concerning the accuracy of the State’s proffered reason for the challenge was not preserved for our review. See State v. Fox, 587 So. 2d 464, 464-65 (Fla. 1991); Ratliff v. State, 666 So. 2d 1008, 1011 n. 5 (Fla. 1st DCA)(“[W]hen the trial court relies on an uncontested factual predicate, an appeals court cannot make a de novo determination that the predicate is factually inaccurate.”),…
Previewing 3 of 6 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)
- Floyd v. State, 569 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 1990)
- State v. Castillo, 486 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1986)
- Shessel v. Est. OF Mary Edith Calhoun, 573 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)