JIMMIE ALEXANDER, 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.
The court held that the trial court erred in denying the defendant's peremptory challenges and in admitting a taped conversation of a nontestifying codefendant.
[1] A trial court errs in denying peremptory challenges when the defense proffers valid race-neutral reasons for striking potential jurors.
[2] A potential juror's inability to follow specific jury instructions constitutes a race-neutral reason for exercising a peremptory challenge.
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 intelligenceThe defendant was convicted of conspiracy. The trial court denied peremptory challenges to two jurors and admitted a taped conversation where a codefe…
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 Trustworthiness Of Statement cases and more on FLexlaw
GODERICH, Judge.
The defendant, Jimmie Alexander, appeals from his conviction and sentence for conspiracy. We reverse.
First, the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s peremptory challenges of jurors Gonzalez and Calzadilla where the defense proffered valid race-neutral reasons for challenging these jurors. As to Gonzalez, his responses during voir dire indicated that he might not be able to follow a specific jury instruction. Alen v. State, 596 So. 2d 1083, 1090 n. 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (Hubbart, J., concurring) (inability to follow law race-neutral reason for exercising peremptory challenge), approved by, 616 So. 2d 452 (Fla.1993). As to Calzadilla, he indicated that he has three family members who are police officers. Id. (association with law enforcement race-neutral reason for exercising peremptory challenge).
Second, the trial court erred in permitting the State to introduce a taped telephone conversation in which a nontestifying codefendant implicated himself and the defendant in the robbery. The State argues that this hearsay statement was properly admitted as a statement against penal interest under the hearsay exception codified in Section 90.804(2)(e), Florida Statutes (1993). We disagree.
In order for a hearsay statement to be admissible as a statement against penal interest,
it must be shown that (1) the declarant is unavailable as a witness, (2) the statement must so far tend to subject the declarant to criminal liability that a reasonable person in the declarant’s position would not have made the statement unless he or she believed it to be true, and (3) corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.
Maugeri v. State, 460 So. 2d 975, 977 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (quoting United States v. Riley, 657 F. 2d 1377, 1383 (8th Cir.1981)). In the instant case, no corroborating circumstances clearly indicated that the statements contained in the taped conversation were trustworthy. Accordingly, the trial court erred in admitting the taped conversation.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Betancourt v. State, 650 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…in seating him for this reason as well. See Desroches v. State, 645 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (reversing denial of defendant’s peremptory challenge based on inability of black juror to relate to black defendant’s situation); Alexander v. State, 643 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (same, challenge based on inability to follow jury instructions and having police officers as family members); Pollock v. State, 634 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (same, challenge based on unspecified race-neutral reasons); Barnes…
-
Morris v. State, 680 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…e where explanation that juror was deputy clerk employed in jury room at the courthouse who knew the participants and worked in the very system that would be responsible for trying defendant was sufficient gender-neutral reason); Alexander v. State, 643 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (reversing denial of defendant’s peremptory challenge based on inability of juror to follow jury instructions and having police officers as family members); Barnes v. State, 620 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (reversing denial of d…
-
Czaja v. State, 674 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…ja’s counsel gave a reasonable and specific reason to meet the requirements of Johans and Neil. A close relationship between the juror and a law enforcement officer is a race-neutral reason for exercising a peremptory strike. See Alexander v. State, 643 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). Once defense counsel has given a race-neutral reason for the strike, the trial court has the duty to determine “whether the opponent of the strike has proved purposeful racial discrimination.” Purkett v. Elem, — U.S. -, -, 115 S.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Alen, 616 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 1993)
- United States v. Riley, 657 F.2d 1377 (8th Cir. 1981)
- Maugeri v. State, 460 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Jenkins v. State, 596 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)