MARK MAPP, 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.
Mark Mapp appealed his conviction for trafficking in cocaine, challenging the trial court's allowance of the state's peremptory challenge against a black juror. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, finding that Mapp waived the issue by using an identical, non-race-neutral rationale for his own peremptory challenge against a Latino juror.
No. The trial court did not err because Mapp waived the issue by accepting the validity of the identical, non-race-neutral explanation when he used it for his own peremptory challenge against a Latino juror. A defendant cannot challenge opposing counsel's peremptory challenge on appeal when he employed the same reasoning for his own challenge at trial.
[1] A defendant waives appellate review of a peremptory challenge ruling when they accept the validity of the opposing party's explanation for a challenge at trial, especiall…
[2] A party may waive the right to challenge a peremptory strike based on a non-race-neutral reason if they previously accepted the same reason for a strike against a juror o…
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“the defendant clearly accepted the validity of the state's explanation for the exercise of the subject peremptory challenge, as the defendant had himself offered precisely the same explanation for his prior exercise of a peremptory challenge against a Latin juror, and thus has waived the point for appellate review”
Establishes the core holding that Mapp waived his challenge by using identical reasoning for his own peremptory challenge
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMapp was convicted of trafficking in cocaine following a jury verdict. During jury selection, the state exercised a peremptory challenge against a bla…
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.
This is an appeal by the defendant Mark Mapp from a judgment of conviction and sentence for trafficking in cocaine, which was entered below upon an adverse jury verdict.
We reject the defendant’s sole contention on appeal that the trial court erred in allowing the state’s exercise of a peremptory challenge against a black juror after a Neil inquiry, and affirm. We reach this result because, simply stated, the defendant clearly accepted the validity of the state’s explanation for the exercise of the subject peremptory challenge, as the defendant had himself offered precisely the same explanation for his prior exercise of a peremptory challenge against a Latin juror, and thus has waived the point for appellate review. See Floyd v. State, 569 So. 2d 1225, 1229-30 (Fla.1990), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 111 S.Ct. 2912, 115 L.Ed.2d 1075 (1991); Bowden v. State, 588 So. 2d 225, 229. (Fla.1991), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 112 S.Ct. 1596, 118 L.Ed.2d 311 (1992).
We recognize that the reason given by both parties for their respective exercise of peremptory challenges was not race-neutral — namely, a desire to reach a more favorable juror on the panel, when no race-neutral reason was given for having challenged a black or Latin juror, as opposed to a white juror, in order to accomplish this purpose. Kibler v. State, 546 So. 2d 710, 714 (Fla.1989); Smellie v. Torres, 570 So. 2d 314, 316-17 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), rev. denied, 582 So. 2d 624 (Fla.1991); Foster v. State, 557 So. 2d 634, 636 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).
Nonetheless, both parties accepted the validity of this reason at trial when given as an explanation for a peremptory challenge, and therefore they have both waived the issue for appellate review. The defendant, having exercised a peremptory challenge against a Latin juror based on this reason and having acquiesced in the validity of the state’s use of a peremptory challenge against a black juror for the same reason, cannot now change his position and argue for the first time on appeal that the state’s peremptory challenge should have been disallowed; plainly, the defendant has waived the issue for appellate review. See Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701, 703 (Fla.1978); McPhee v. State, 254 So. 2d 406, 409-10 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Hernandez, 658 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…nts were never raised below, they will not be entertained for the first time on appeal. Pulles v. State, 641 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Montanez v. State, 630 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), rev. denied, 639 So. 2d 979 (Fla.1994); Mapp v. State, 613 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).…
Authorities Cited
- Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 1978)
- Floyd v. State, 569 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 1990)
- Bowden v. State, 588 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 1991)
- McPHEE v. State, 254 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- Kibler v. State, 546 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 1989)
- Dauer v. State, 570 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Foster v. State, 557 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)