MICHAEL OWEN FOXX, 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.
Michael Owen Foxx, an African-American defendant convicted of second-degree murder and manslaughter, appealed his conviction challenging the trial court's denial of his peremptory challenges during jury selection. The court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly conducted a Neil inquiry and the State adequately established the predicate for such inquiry.
The trial court properly denied Foxx's peremptory challenge. The State's request for a Neil inquiry adequately satisfied the predicate requirements, and the trial court did not err in finding that Foxx's stated reason was insufficient to show race neutrality.
[1] A party objecting to a peremptory challenge on racial grounds must make a timely objection, show the venireperson is a member of a distinct racial group, and request the…
[2] Once a party establishes the predicate for a Neil inquiry, the burden shifts to the party attempting the peremptory challenge to provide a genuinely race-neutral explanat…
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 party objecting to a peremptory challenge on racial grounds must (a) make a timely objection on that basis, (b) show that the venireperson is a member of a distinct racial group, and (c) request that the court ask the striking party its reason for the strike”
Establishes the three-part predicate test for a Neil inquiry as clarified in Melbourne v. State
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring jury selection, Foxx, an African-American defendant, attempted to use a peremptory challenge to strike a Hispanic venireperson. The State's att…
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
[*1065] FLETCHER, Judge.
Defendant Michael Owen Foxx appeals Ms conviction on one count of second-degree murder and one count of manslaughter with a firearm, contending that the trial court improperly conducted a Neil1 inquiry into and disallowed Ms trial counsel’s attempt to exercise two peremptory challenges. Our review of the record reveals that Foxx adequately preserved for review only one of Ms challenge attempts. Finding that the trial court properly demed the challenge, we affirm.
During the jury selection, Foxx (an African-American), through Ms counsel, announced Ms peremptory challenge of an Hís-pame venireperson, at wMch time the State’s attorney informed the trial court, “We would ask for a Neil inquiry.” Foxx’s trial attorney immediately stated Ms reasoning for the strike, wMch the trial court found to be insufficient to show race neutrality-
Foxx contends that the State’s request for the inquiry was insufficient and therefore all that followed was inappropriate. We find, however, that the State’s request adequately satisfies the predicate for a Neil inquiry as set forth in Melbourne v. State, 679 So. 2d 759 (Fla.1996). In Melbourne, the Florida Supreme Court clarified that the party objeet-mg to “a peremptory challenge on racial grounds must (a) make a timely objection on that basis, (b) show that the venireperson is a member of a distinct racial group, and (c) request that the court ask the striking party its reason for the strike.” Id. at 764. Once this is accomplished, the burden then shifts to the party attempting the challenge to show a genuinely race-neutral explanation for the attempted strike.
Although the State here did not expressly state that the venireperson was a member of a distinct racial group, it is clear from the record that such was the case and that the trial court was aware of this fact. We also note that before either the trial court or the State could ask for Foxx’s reason for the attempted strike, Foxx’s trial counsel volunteered a reason. Under such conditions, neither the trial court nor the State can be faulted, and an entire trial reversed, because a totally unnecessary step was not taken.
Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
. State v. Neil, 457 So. 2d 481 (Fla.1984).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hernandez v. State, 686 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…s entitled to exercise this strike. Applying Step 1 of the Melbourne procedure, the state adequately objected to this peremptory strike. See State v. Holiday, 682 So. 2d 1092 (Fla.1996); Valentine v. State, 616 So. 2d 971 (Fla.1993); Foxx v. State, 680 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Step 2 required the defendant to provide a facially race-neutral reason for the strike. Melbourne, 679 So. 2d at 764. We conclude Mr. Hernandez fulfilled this requirement by explaining that he was striking this juror both because…
-
Alsopp v. State, 855 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…d “challenge that strike” where it was clear from the record that the alleged juror was born and raised in Cuba, that the juror’s name was Aurelio Diaz, and that the trial court clearly understood the nature of the State’s objection); Foxx v. State, 680 So. 2d 1064, 1065 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)(finding the State’s comment that “We would ask for a Neil inquiry” sufficient where it was clear from the record that the venire person was a member of a distinct racial group and that the trial court was aware of this fact)…
-
Smith v. State, 1 So. 3d 352 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…late review”); Alsopp, 855 So. 2d at 697 (holding that “where it is clear that the challenged juror is a member of a racial or ethnic group and the court is aware of the fact, a general objection is sufficient to trigger an inquiry”); Foxx v. State, 680 So. 2d 1064, 1065 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (finding the State’s comment that “we would ask for a Neil inquiry” sufficient where it was clear from the record that the prospective juror was a member of a distinct racial group and the trial court was aware of this fact)…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Neil, 457 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1984)
- Jeanie H. Melbourne v. State, 679 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 1996)