ANTHONY HARRIS, JR., 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.
Harris was convicted of first-degree murder, robbery, and grand theft. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial because the trial court failed to properly inquire into whether the prosecution's peremptory challenge of a black female juror was racially motivated, particularly after the court had denied the prosecution's objection to the defense's strike of a white juror.
The trial court erred in failing to require the prosecution to demonstrate legitimate, race-neutral, record-supported reasons for striking the black female juror. All three requirements for a prima facie case of racial discrimination in peremptory challenges were met: a timely objection was voiced, the challenged person was a member of a distinct racial group, and a likelihood that the challenge was motivated solely by race was described.
[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] When a party objects to a peremptory challenge based on racial discrimination, the trial court must require the challenging party to demonstrate legitimate, race-neutral,…
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“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 required to raise a prima facie case of racial discrimination in 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 jury selection, the prosecution objected to the defense's peremptory challenge striking a white male juror, claiming it violated his constituti…
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 Group Bias cases and more on FLexlaw
DANAHY, Judge.
The appellant challenges his convictions for first-degree murder, robbery, and grand theft. One of the issues raised by the appellant requires that we reverse and remand for a new trial. We need not, therefore, address the other two issues.
During jury selection, the state objected to the use of a peremptory challenge by defense counsel to strike a Caucasian male from the group of prospective jurors. The state explained that it felt the white male juror’s constitutional rights were violated by his exclusion from an opportunity to serve on a jury because he was white, and where the victim in the case was white. Remarking “that you must show a strong likelihood that the defense is exercising its peremptory challenges based on group bias and you have wholly failed to show it,” the trial court overruled the state’s objection.
The state thereupon promptly exercised a peremptory challenge to “backstrike” juror number five, a black female, who had already been accepted by the state. The defense objected, pointing out that the defendant on trial, the appellant, is a black male.
The trial court ruled that the defense had failed to show a strong likelihood that the state exercised its peremptory challenge based on “group bias,” and overruled the objection. The defense responded by pointing out that the jurors were acceptable to the state, including juror number five, the black female in question, and that only after the court overruled the state’s objection to the strike of a white juror did the state elect to strike a black female juror who had previously been acceptable. Defense counsel maintained that this constituted a showing of a likelihood that the challenge was motivated solely by race. Notwithstanding, the trial court adhered to its previous ruling and overruled the defense objection.
We believe the trial court erred in failing to make the inquiry required by the supreme court in State v. Neil, 457 So. 2d 481 (Fla.1984), clarified, State v. Castillo, 486 So. 2d 565 (Fla.1986), and clarified, State v. Slappy, 522 So. 2d 18 (Fla.), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1219, 108 S.Ct. 2873, 101 L.Ed.2d 909 (1988). Those decisions say that 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. We believe all three of these requirements were met in this case.
Accordingly, the trial court erred in failing to require the state to demonstrate legitimate, race-neutral, record-supported reasons for the challenge.
We reverse and remand for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
SCHOONOVER, C.J., and HALL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities 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)
- State v. Castillo, 486 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1986)