CAROLYN MILLER, 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 Florida Third District Court of Appeal reversed Carolyn Miller's grand theft conviction and ordered a new trial because the trial court erroneously disallowed a peremptory challenge to a prospective juror. The court held that the prosecutor's bare assertion requesting a neutral reason was insufficient to trigger a Neil inquiry into potential racial discrimination, and the defense counsel's stated reason for the strike was race- and gender-neutral and fully justified.
The conviction is reversed because (1) the prosecutor's simple declaration requesting a neutral reason, without more, was insufficient to trigger a Neil inquiry into potential racial discrimination, and (2) the defense counsel's stated reason—that the prospective juror, like the victim, owned his own business with employees—was a perfectly satisfactory race- and gender-neutral reason that fully justified the peremptory challenge.
[1] A prosecutor's simple declaration that the state is requesting a neutral reason is insufficient to trigger a Neil inquiry without more.
[2] A peremptory challenge based on a prospective juror's status as a business owner with employees, similar to the victim in the case, is a race- and gender-neutral reason t…
Previewing 2 of 3 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 prosecutor's simple declaration that the "state is requesting a neutral reason" after the strike was attempted was, without more, insufficient to trigger a Neil inquiry”
Establishes that a bare assertion by the prosecutor is inadequate to require the defense to articulate a race-neutral reason for a peremptory challenge.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarolyn Miller was convicted of grand theft from her employer. During jury selection, defense counsel attempted to exercise a peremptory challenge aga…
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
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
The defendant’s conviction for grand theft from her employer is reversed for a new trial because of the erroneous disallowance of a defense peremptory challenge to a prospective juror. This result is required both because (a) the prosecutor’s simple declaration that the “state is requesting a neutral reason” after the strike was attempted was, without more,1 insufficient to trigger a Neil inquiry, see Windom v. State, 656 So. 2d 432 (Fla.1995), cert, denied, — U.S. —, 116 S.Ct. 571, — L.Ed.2d — (U.S. Case no. 95-6232, Dec. 4, 1995); State v. Johans, 613 So. 2d 1319 (Fla.1993); Portu v. State, 651 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), review denied, 658 So. 2d 992 (Fla.1995); Betancourt v. State, 650 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), review denied, 659 So. 2d 272 (Fla.1995); compare Cruz v. State, 660 So. 2d 792, 793 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (“[I]n order to properly invoke a Neil inquiry the objecting party must make a timely objection, and create the fact-supported inference that a peremptory challenge is being used in a racially discriminatory manner.”), and (b) the basis for the challenge as proffered by defense counsel— that, like the victim, the prospective juror was the owner of his own business with employees like the defendant — was a perfectly satisfactory race-and gender-neutral reason based on the facts of the case which fully justified the strike. Smith v. State, 662 So. 2d 1336 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Melbourne v. State, 655 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), review granted 662 So. 2d 932 (Fla. Case no. 86,029, October 16, 1995); Betancourt, 650 So. 2d at 1021; Wimberly v. State, 599 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).
Reversed.
. The record does not even establish the juror's race or ethnicity.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Windom v. State, 656 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 1995)
- State v. Johans, 613 So. 2d 1319 (Fla. 1993)
- Portu v. State, 651 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Gehrmann v. State, 650 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Betancourt v. State, 650 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Cruz v. State, 660 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Jeanie Melbourne v. State, 655 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Wimberly v. State, 599 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Tony deAndre Smith v. State, 662 So. 2d 1336 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)