EDGAR L. ADAMS, 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.
Edgar Adams appeals his drug convictions and probation violation sentence, alleging the state violated anti-discrimination rules by using a peremptory challenge to strike the only black juror from the panel. The appellate court affirmed, finding the state's reason for striking the juror—that he claimed to recognize Adams—was race-neutral and not pretextual.
The court held that the state's reason for striking the black juror was race-neutral and not pretextual. The state's justification—that the juror knew or recognized the defendant—is a valid, race-neutral reason for striking a juror and does not require reaching the level of a challenge for cause.
[1] A prosecutor may exercise a peremptory challenge to excuse a potential juror who knows the defendant or a member of the defendant's family, as this is a race-neutral reas…
[2] A peremptory challenge is not pretextual when the stated reason for excusing a juror is race-neutral and applied equally to all potential jurors who share that characteri…
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 state's justification is not required to reach the level of a challenge for cause, we hold that the reason for the use of the peremptory challenge was not pretextual, but race neutral”
Establishes that race-neutral reasons for peremptory challenges need not meet the standard of a challenge for cause and need not be pretextual even if they appear subjective.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAdams was convicted of possession of cocaine and sale of cocaine in trial court case number 93-625-CF-A-Y. During jury selection, when the trial court…
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 State V. Slappy cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, Judge.
Edgar L. Adams appeals his conviction and sentence in trial court case number 93-625-CF-A-Y. He was convicted of possession of cocaine1 and sale of cocaine.2 Adams also appeals his sentence for violation of probation in trial court case number 92^453-CF-A-Y. The sentence in his violation of probation case resulted from the conviction in the drug case. He alleges the trial court erred in allowing the state to strike the only black juror on the panel. He alleges the state struck the juror for an improper, non-race-neutral reason, over his objection. We affirm.
Adams alleges that the state used a peremptory challenge to strike a black juror solely because of his race. He argues that the state’s reason was pretextual and violates the court mandates in State v. Neil, 457 So. 2d 481 (Fla.1984) and State v. Slappy, 522 So. 2d 18 (Fla.1988), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1219, 108 S.Ct. 2873, 101 L.Ed.2d 909 (1988). These cases prevent the state from discriminating against minority jurors by using peremptory challenges solely to eliminate minorities from jury panels.
In this case, the record demonstrates that the state asked all the jurors on the panel if they recognized Adams or if they were familiar with him or a member of his family. When the black juror said “His face looked familiar. I don’t know if he recognizes me or not, but I think I recognize him.” The state excused the black juror. The state also excused every juror that stated they thought they knew Adams or his wife. It is a race neutral reason to excuse a potential juror if the juror knows the defendant or a member of the defendant’s family. Green v. State, 583 So. 2d 647 (Fla.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1102, 112 S.Ct. 1191, 117 L.Ed.2d 432 (1992); Cure v. State, 564 So. 2d 1251 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Since the state’s justification is not required to reach the level of a challenge for cause, we hold that the reason for the use of the peremptory challenge was not pretextual, but race neutral. See Holl- ingsworth v. Burton, 30 F. 3d 109 (11th Cir. 1994).
HARRIS, C.J., and DAUKSCH, J., concur. . §§ 893.03(2)(a)4, . 893.13(l)(a)(l), Fla.Stat. (1991).
. §§ 893.03(2)(a)4, 893.13(l)(a)(l), Fla.Stat. (1991).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ferryman v. State, 919 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…extual. The reason given by the State for the challenge — that the potential juror knew some of the witnesses that might be called by the State — appears to be a sufficient basis for the trial court to allow the challenge. See, e.g., Adams v. State, 646 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); cf, Hightower v. State, 666 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). Moreover, the trial court reasonably noted that Mr. Ferryman had previously struck two African-American potential jurors, and that a third juror of the same race remain…
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)
- Alphonso Green v. State, 583 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 1991)
- Cure v. State, 564 So. 2d 1251 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Hollingsworth v. Burton, 30 F.3d 109 (11th Cir. 1994)
- Liera-Juarez v. United States, 502 U.S. 1102 (U.S. 1992)
- Green v. Florida, 502 U.S. 1102 (U.S. 1992)