SIDNEY TYRONE RATLIFF, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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 burden of persuasion to prove purposeful racial discrimination in the exercise of a peremptory challenge never leaves the opponent of the strike.
The First District Court of Appeal certified a question regarding the burden of proof when a peremptory challenge is objected to on racial grounds. Th…
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 Race-Neutral Explanation cases and more on FLexlaw
WELLS, Justice.
We have for review a decision certifying the following question certified to be of great public importance:
WHEN A LITIGANT OBJECTS THAT AN OPPOSING PARTY SEEKS TO EXERCISE A PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE FOR CONSTITUTIONALLY IMPERMISSIBLE REASONS, WHO HAS THE BURDEN TO PROVE (OR DISPROVE) FACTS ON WHICH THE OBJECTOR RELIES?
Ratliff v. State, 666 So. 2d 1008, 1015 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We recently clarified the guidelines for trial courts to use when confronting race-based objections to peremptory challenges. See Melbourne v. State, 679 So. 2d 759 (Fla.1996). In Melbourne, we stated:
A party objecting to the other side’s use of a peremptory challenge on racial grounds must: a) make a timely objection on that basis, b) show that the venireper-son is a member of a distinct racial group, and c) request that the court ask the striking party its reason for the strike. If these initial requirements are met (step 1), the court must ask the proponent of the strike to explain the reason for the strike.
At this point, the burden of production shifts to the proponent of the strike to come forward with a race-neutral explanation (step 2). If the explanation is facially race-neutral and the court believes that, given all the circumstances surrounding the strike, the explanation is not a pretext, the strike will be sustained (step 3). The court’s focus in step 3 is not on the reasonableness of the explanation but rather its genuineness. Throughout this process, the burden of persuasion never leaves the opponent of the strike to prove purposeful racial discrimination.
Id. at 764 (footnotes omitted).
Accordingly, we approve the decision of the district court below.
It is so ordered.
KOGAN, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, GRIMES, HARDING and ANSTEAD, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nelson v. State, 688 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…e for its reasons. At this point, the state, as the proponent of the strike, was required to come forward with a race-neutral explanation. If the explanation is not a pretext, the peremptory challenge is to be sustained. Melbourne; Ratliff v. State, 679 So. 2d 1183 (Fla.1996); State v. Holiday, 682 So. 2d 1092 (Fla.1996). The explanation need not be non-racial and reasonable, only truly non-raeial. Melbourne, 679 So. 2d at 764 n. 9. The burden of persuasion never leaves the opponent of a peremptory strike to…
-
Sirron J. Johnson v. State, 717 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…of the trial judge who can consider the demeanor of those involved and can get a feel for what is going on in the jury selection process. See Files v. State, 613 So. 2d 1301, 1305 (Fla.1992); Ratliff v. State, 666 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 1st DCA), app’d, 679 So. 2d 1183 (Fla.1996). The trial court’s decision is given great deference and should be affirmed unless clearly erroneous. Melbourne, 679 So. 2d at 764. Here, the trial judge conducted a Neil * inquiry and found the challenge was not racially motivated. Jo…
-
Heggan v. State, 745 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…Fla. 1991); Ratliff v. State, 666 So. 2d 1008, 1011 n. 5 (Fla. 1st DCA)(“[W]hen the trial court relies on an uncontested factual predicate, an appeals court cannot make a de novo determination that the predicate is factually inaccurate.”), approved, 679 So. 2d 1183 (Fla.1996).…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jeanie H. Melbourne v. State, 679 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 1996)
- Ratliff v. State, 666 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)