CHRISTOPHER BROWN, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Christopher Brown appeals his grand theft conviction, contending that the State improperly used a peremptory challenge to strike a black prospective juror based on a racially discriminatory reason. The appellate court found the State's stated reason pretextual and reversed for a new trial.
The court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that the State's stated reason for the peremptory challenge—that the juror did not hear or understand the questions—was pretextual and not supported by the record evidence.
[1] A peremptory challenge is impermissible if the stated reason for striking a prospective juror is not racially neutral.
[2] When a defendant objects to a peremptory challenge based on racial grounds, the trial court must conduct a Neil inquiry.
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“We find no evidence on the record to show the juror's lack of understanding or inability to hear. Accordingly, we find the reason given by the State was pretextual.”
The court's central holding that the State's stated justification for the peremptory challenge was not supported by the record and therefore constituted a pretext for racial discrimination.
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 in Brown's grand theft trial, the State used a peremptory challenge to strike prospective juror Alfred Rolle, who is black. When…
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
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Christopher Brown, appeals his conviction for grand theft raising issues concerning jury selection.
We reverse and remand.
Appellant’s main contention is that the State improperly used a peremptory challenge to strike a black prospective juror.
Appellant maintains that the State’s reason for striking the juror was not racially neutral, and therefore impermissible. After Appellant objected to the peremptory challenge, the trial court conducted a Neil inquiry. The State provided the following reason for the challenge: [Ejither he didn’t hear or didn’t seem to understand what I was asking, and I just don’t know if he’s with it.
On appeal, the State maintains that the following answers by the juror demonstrate that the juror did in fact have difficulty hearing or understanding: ASA: Alfred Rolle. Okay. Mr. Rolle, how are you employed? Mr. Rolle: I’m retired.
ASA: What did you do when you were working? Mr. Rolle: Was a truck driver. ASA: Are you married? Mr. Rolle: Divorced.
ASA: Okay. When you were married, what was your wife doing? Did she work? Mr. Rolle: Working at the hospital. ASA: Any working kids?
Mr. Rolle: Huh?
ASA: Do you have any children who are employed: Mr. Rolle: No. ASA: Why did you feel they treated you unfairly? Mr. Rolle: Huh?
ASA: I said why were you not treated fairly? Mr. Rolle: That one time?
ASA: Yeah. Mr. Rolle: Well, I don’t know, I don’t know what this — he was what you call a patrolman with a dog. He wouldn’t let me explain nothing to him. You just get it this ticket is yours. ASA: So you didn’t feel he was courteous to you? Mr. Rolle: No, no.
ASA: Do you feel you would hold it against a police officer who might testify in this? Mr. Rolle: Oh, no, because I had a lot of other tickets before that I was treated fairly. ASA: Okay. Thank you.
We find no evidence on the record to show the juror’s lack of understanding or inability to hear.
Accordingly, we find the reason given by the State was pretextual. On the principles set forth 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) and State v. Neil, 457 So. 2d 481 (Fla.1984), we reverse and remand for a new trial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Givens v. State, 619 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…*502] ue. A mere “feeling” about a juror does not satisfy the.requirements of Neil. Foster v. State, 557 So. 2d 634, 635 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). We cannot glean anything from the record to support either reason given regarding Mrs. Love. Brown v. State, 597 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (reversing and remanding for new trial, absent any evidence in the record to show stricken juror’s lack of understanding or inability to hear). The record demonstrates that she provided adequate verbal responses to the questions a…
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)